advocacy organization.

CHAPTER I. THE LAWYER AND SOCIETY

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE
CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE
LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW OF
AND LEGAL PROCESSES.
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------
3. In 1992 Hamm was paroled. While on parole, he devoted
many hours to serving the community, appearing and
speaking at various schools and organizations, appearing at
legislative hearings regarding revisions to the criminal code,
and answering questions regarding the Department of
Corrections’ policies and procedures. He attended the ASU
College of Law and graduated in 1996. In 1999, he passed the
bar examination. In 2001, Hamm was discharged from parole.

DIGEST: a. In the Matter of James Joseph Hamm, Arizona

Supreme Court No. SB-04-0079-M. December 6, 2005
ISSUE:

BADGE: GOOD MORAL CHARACTER 1. W/N HAMM passes the requirements of good moral
character
TICKLER: “James Hamm petitioned this Court, pursuant to
Arizona Supreme Court Rule 36(g), 17A A.R.S., to review the
recommendation of the Committee on Character and Fitness RULING:
(the Committee) that his application for admission to the
1. NO.
State Bar of Arizona (the Bar) be denied.”

- Because James Hamm has failed to meet his burden

FALLO: “Because James Hamm has failed to meet his burden
of proving that he is of good moral character, we deny his
application for admission to the State Bar of Arizona.”
of proving that he is of good moral character, we
deny his application for admission to the State Bar of
Arizona.
- on the following grounds:

- Hamm failed to show rehabilitation from

FACTS:
1. In 1974, when James Hamm was 26 years of age, he and
two accomplices planned to ripoff two young men who
wanted to buy 20 pounds of marijuana. Hamm claims that
the plan was merely to rob the buyers, not murder them.
Hamm and an accomplice ended up shooting the buyers
and killing them. Hamm was arrested and charged with two
counts of first degree murder and two counts of armed
robbery. A few months later, Hamm pled guilty of one count
of first degree murder, involving the victim he killed, and the
remaining charges were dismissed. He was sentenced to life
in prison, without the possibility of parole for 25 years.
past criminal conduct by not accepting full
responsibility forserious criminal misconduct
Staples’ murder although he accepted
responsibility for the death of Morley.
- Hamm was not completely upfront in his
testimony to the murder of which he claims
that he only intended to rob and not to kill.
- This is contrary to the facts he accepted
the gun and brings it with him in the car,
shot Morley without attempting robbery
and shot hit again to ensure he is dead
and shot Staples when he attempted to
escape.

2. Hamm spent 17 ½ years in prison. During that time, he was - Hamm’s failure to fulfill his long overdue
a model prisoner. He obtained his undergraduate degree, obligation to support his child who he was
wrote numerous grants for programs and speakers on various aware existed.
issues relevant to prisoners and rehabilitation, and assisted
- Hamm’s failure to disclose the incident
other prisoners in their attempts to better themselves and
involving him and his wife, Donna, when he
accept responsibility for their acts. Hamm and his first wife,
submitted his application to the
with whom he had a son, were in the process of divorcing at
Committee. This incident gave rise to
the time of the crime. He never received the final order of
Hamm being questioned by the law
child support, and understood that his former wife’s new
enforcers which should have been
husband had adopted his son. While in prison, he met and
reflected by Hamm in the application
married Donna Leone. She and Hamm founded Middle
Ground Prison Reform, a prisoner and prisoner family
• __
Question.
- Hamm’s act of quoting lines from Supreme
Courts’ decision and use the same in the
introduction for his petition
CAPTION: Dr. Elmar Perez v. Atty. Tristan Catindig, A.C. No.
5816, March 10, 2015
BADGE: Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Gross Immoral Conduct;
Disbarment; Suspension; Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court provides that a lawyer may be removed or suspended
from the practice of law, inter alia, for grossly immoral
conduct.
TICKLER: “Before the Court is an administrative complaint1 for
disbarment filed by Dr. Elmar O. Perez (Dr. Perez) with the
Office of the Bar Confidant on August 27, 2002 against Atty.
Tristan A. Catindig (Atty. Catindig) and Atty. Karen E. Baydo
(Atty. Baydo) (respondents) for gross immorality and violation
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.”
FALLO: “WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing
disquisitions, the Court resolves to ADOPT
recommendations of the Commission on Bar Discipline of the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Atty. Tristan A. Catindig is
found GUILTY of gross immorality and of violating the LawyerÊs
Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and is hereby DISBARRED from the
practice of law.
ISSUE:
1. WON the respondents committed gross immorality, which
would warrant their disbarment.
RULING:
1. YES
- Contracting a marriage during the subsistence of a
previous one amounts to a grossly immoral conduct.
- There is insufficient evidence to prove the affair
between the respondents.
- As it is, the evidence that was presented by Dr. Perez
to prove her claim was mere allegation, an
anonymous letter informing her that the respondents
were indeed having an affair and the purported
love letter to Atty. Baydo that was signed by Atty.
Catindig. The Court has consistently held that in
suspension or disbarment proceedings against
lawyers, the lawyer enjoys the presumption of
innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant to prove the allegations in his
complaint.
- The evidence required in suspension or disbarment
proceedings is preponderance of evidence.
CAPTION: g. Atty. Ecraela v. Atty. Pangalangan, A.C. No.
10676. September 8, 2015
BADGE: Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Good Moral Character; Good
moral character is not only required for admission to the Bar,
but must also be retained in order to maintain oneÊs good
standing in this exclusive and honored fraternity.·
TICKLER: “Before the Court is a Petition for Disbarment1 filed
by Atty. Roy B. Ecraela with the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) on April 12,
2007 against Atty. Ian Raymond A. Pangalangan for his illicit
relations, chronic womanizing, abuse of authority as an
educator, and „other unscrupulous activities which cause
„undue embarrassment to the legal profession. Complainant
claims that respondents actions involve deceit, malpractice,
the gross misconduct and grossly immoral conduct in violation of
the Lawyers Oath.”
FALLO: “WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the
Court resolves to ADOPT the resolution of the IBP Board of
Governors approving and adopting, with modification, the
Report and Recommendation of the Investigating
Commissioner. Accordingly, respondent Atty. Ian Raymond A.
Pangalangan is found GUILTY of gross immorality and of
violating Section 2 of Article XV of the 1987 Constitution,
Canon 1 and Rule 1.01, Canon 7 and Rule 7.03, and Rule 10.01
of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and
the LawyerÊs Oath and is hereby DISBARRED from the practice
of law.”
FACTS:
1. Respondent was formerly married to Sheila P. Jardiolin
(Jardiolin) with whom he has three (3) children. Complainant
avers that while married to Jardiolin, respondent had a series
of adulterous and illicit relations with married and unmarried
women between the years 1990 to 2007.
These alleged illicit relations involved:
2
• __

1. AAA, who is the spouse of a colleague in the UP College of

Law, from 1990 to 1992, which complainant had personal
knowledge of such illicit relations;

FACTS:
2. BBB, sometime during the period from 1992 to 1994 or from
1994 to 1996, despite being already married to Jardiolin; 1. International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) is an international
organization recognized by the Philippine government and
3, CCC, despite being married to Jardiolin and while also
accorded privileges, rights and immunities normally granted
being romantically involved with DDD;
to organizations of universal character.
4. DDD, sometime during the period from 2000 to 2002,
- IRRI Employment Policy and Regulations, the
despite still being married to Jardiolin and while still being
Miscellaneous Provisions of which states
romantically involved with CCC;

- An employer who has been convicted of a

5. EEE, who is related to complainant, sometime during the
(sic) criminal offense involving moral
period from May 2004 until the filing of the Petition, while still
turpitude may be dismissed from the
being romantically involved with CCC.
service.1

ISSUE: 1. Should Atty. Pangalangan be disbarred?

RULING: 2. In 1977, it hired private respondent Nestor B. Micosa as

laborer
1. YES
- On February 6, 1967, Micosa stabbed to death one
- The practice of law is a privilege given to those who
Reynaldo Ortega inside a beer house in Los Baños,
possess and continue to possess the legal
Laguna.
qualifications for the profession. Good moral
character is not only required for admission to the - On September 15, 1987, Micosa was accused of the
Bar, but must also be retained in order to maintain crime of homicide.
one's good standing in this exclusive and honored
fraternity. - During the pendency of the criminal case, Micosa
voluntarily applied for inclusion in IRRI's Special
- In the case at bar, complainant alleged that Separation Program.
respondent carried on several adulterous and illicit
relations with both married and unmarried women - However, on January 9, 1990, IRRI's Director
between the years 1990 to 2007, including General, Klaus L. Lampe expressed deep
complainant's own wife. regret that he had to disapprove Micosa's
application for separation because of IRRI's
- Through documentary evidences in the form of desire to retain the skills and talents that
email messages, as well as the corroborating persons like him possess.
testimonies of the witnesses presented, complainant
was able to establish respondent's illicit relations with - On January 23, 1990, the trial court
DOD and CCC by preponderant evidence. rendered a decision fending Micosa guilty
of homicide, but appreciating, however, in
his favor the presence of the mitigating
circumstances of (a) incomplete self-
CAPTION: IRRI V NLRC GR. NO. 97239 MAY12, 1993 defense and (b) voluntary surrender, plus
the total absence of any aggravating
TICKLER: “Posed for determination in this petition for certiorari circumstance.
is the question of whether a conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude is a ground for dismissal from employment
and corollarily, whether a conviction of a crime of homicide
involves moral turpitude.”
3. On February 8, 1990, IRRI's Director General personally
wrote Micosa that his appointment as laborer was confirmed,
making him a regular core employee whose appointment
FALLO: “WHEREFORE, the petition(by IRRI against NLRC’s
was for an indefinite period and who "may not be terminated
decision in favor of Micosa), is hereby DISMISSED for lack of
except for justifiable causes as defined by the pertinent
merit.”
provisions of the Philippine Labor Code

3
• __
1. Not all the time. For Micosa’s case, it is not of Moral
Turpitude
4. On March 30, 1990, IRRI's Human Resource Development
Head, J.K. Pascual wrote Micosa urging him to resign from
employment in view of his conviction in the case for
homicide.
5. On April 4, 1990, the Laguna Parole and Probation Office
No. II wrote IRRI informing the latter that said office found
Micosa's application for probation meritorious as he was
evaluated "to possess desirable social antecedents in his life."4
6. On April 6, 1990, Micosa informed J.K. Pascual that he had
no intention of resigning from his job at IRRI.
7. On April 22, 1990, J. K. Pascual replied to Micosa's letter
insisting that the crime for which he was convicted involves
moral turpitude and informing him that he is thereby charged
of violating Section I-AA, Par VII, C-2 of the Institute's
Personnel Manual.
8. On April 27, 1990, Micosa explained to J.K. Pascual that the
slaying of Reynaldo Ortega on February 6, 1987 arose out of
his act of defending himself from unlawful aggression; that his
conviction did not involve moral turpitude and that he opted
not to appeal his conviction so that he could avail of the
benefits of probation, which the trial court granted to him.
9. On May 7, 1990, Micosa sought the assistance of IRRI's
Grievance Committee who recommended to the Director
General, his continued employment.
- However, on May 21, 1990, J.K. Pascual issued a
notice to Micosa that the latter's employment was to
terminate effective May 25, 1990.
- On May 29, 1990, Micosa filed a case for illegal
dismissal.
ISSUE:
1. W/N conviction of homicide involves moral turpitude
2. W/N Micosa was illegally dismissed as decided by NLRC?
W/N NLRC committed a grave abuse of discretion?
RULING:
Moral turpitude has been defined in Can v. Galing 10 citing
In Re Basa11 and Tak Ng v. Republic12 as everything which
is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act
of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social
duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in
general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good
morals.
- As to what crime involves moral turpitude, is for the
Supreme Court to determine.13
- Thus, the precipitate conclusion of IRRI that
conviction of the crime of homicide involves moral
turpitude is unwarranted considering that the said
crime which resulted from an act of incomplete self-
defense from an unlawful aggression by the victim
has not been so classified as involving moral
turpitude.
- “This is not to say that all convictions of the crime of
homicide do not involve moral turpitude. Homicide
may or may not involve moral turpitude depending
on the degree of the crime.14
- Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal act
and is not shown by every known and intentional
violation of statute, but whether any particular
conviction involves moral turpitude may be a
question of fact and frequently depends on all the
surrounding circumstances.”
- While . . . generally but not always, crimes mala in se
involve moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibita
do not, it, cannot always be ascertained whether
moral turpitude does or does not exist by classifying
a crime as malum in se or as malum prohibitum,
since there are crimes which are mala in se and yet
but rarely involve moral turpitude and there are
crimes which involve moral turpitude and are mala
prohibita only.16 It follows therefore, that moral
turpitude is somewhat a vague and indefinite term,
the meaning of which must be left to the process of
judicial inclusion or exclusion as the cases are
reached.
- Likewise, noteworthy is the fact that Micosa,
although found guilty as charged, was also found
worthy of probation. This means that all the
information regarding his character, antecedents,
environment, as well as his mental and physical
condition were evaluated as required under Section
8 of the Probation Law and it was found that there
existed no undue risk that Micosa will commit
another crime during his period of probation and
4
• __
that his being placed on probation would be to the
benefit of society as a whole.
-
2. No. NLRC did not
- In fine, there is nothing in this case to show any
abuse of discretion by the National Labor Relations
Commission in affirming the decision of the Labor
Arbiter finding that Micosa was illegally dismissed.
- For certiorari to lie, there must be capricious,
arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power, the very
antithesis of the judicial prerogative in accordance
with centuries of both civil and common traditions.17
The abuse of discretion must be grave and patent,
and it must be shown that the discretion was
exercised arbitrarily or despotically.18
NOTE ON MORAL TURPITUDE
RULE 138 Attorneys and Admission to Bar Section 2. Requirements for
all applicants for admission to the bar. — Every applicant for admission
as a member of the bar must be a citizen of the Philippines, at least
twenty-one years of age, of good moral character, and resident of the
Philippines; and must produce before the Supreme Court satisfactory
evidence of good moral character, and that no charges against him,
involving moral turpitude, have been filed or are pending in any
court in the Philippines.
CAPTION: Roberto Soriano v. Atty. Manuel Dizon, A. C. No
6792. January 25, 2006
BADGE: Attorneys; Disbarment; Conviction for a crime
involving moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment or
suspension
TICKLER: “Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,
conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for
disbarment or suspension. By such conviction, a lawyer is
deemed to have become unfit to uphold the administration
of justice and to be no longer possessed of good moral
character. In the instant case, respondent has been found
guilty; and he stands convicted, by final judgment, of
frustrated homicide.”
FALLO: “WHEREFORE, RESPONDENT MANUEL DIZON is hereby
DISBARRED, and his name is ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll
of Attorneys. Let a copy of this Decision be entered in his
record as a member of the Bar; and let notice of the same be
served on the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and on the
Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in
the country. SO ORDERED.”
FACTS:
1. While driving on his way home, a taxi driver (herein
complainant) overtook the car driven by herein respondent.
2. Incensed, respondent tailed the taxi driver until the latter
stopped to make a turn. An altercation resulted therefrom
that got to the point that the respondent fired and shot
complainant hitting him on the neck.
3. He fell on the thigh of the respondent so the latter pushed
him out and sped off.
4. The accused also stopped his car, berated the taxi driver
and held him by his shirt. To stop the aggression, the taxi driver
forced open his door causing the accused to fall to the
ground.
ISSUE:
1. WON respondent’s guilt warrants disbarment.
2. WON respondent’s crime homicide involve moral turpitude
RULING:
1. Yes.
- Moral turpitude has been defined as “everything
which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good
morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in
the private and social duties which a man owes his
fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to
justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.”
- It is also glaringly clear that respondent seriously
transgressed Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility through
- his illegal possession of an unlicensed
firearm and
- his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities.
2. YES
- In the IRRI case, in which the crime of homicide did
not involve moral turpitude, the Court appreciated
the presence of incomplete self-defense and total
absence of aggravating circumstances.
- The present case is totally different. As the IBP
correctly found, the circumstances clearly evince
the moral turpitude of respondent and his
unworthiness to practice law. Atty. Dizon was
5
• __
definitely the aggressor, as he pursued and shot
complainant when the latter least expected it.
CAPTION: Engel Paul Aca v. Atty. Ronaldo Salvado, A.C.
10952. January 26. 2016
BADGE: Attorneys; Legal Ethics; As a man of law, a lawyer is
necessarily a leader of the community, looked up to as a
model citizen.·
TICKLER: “On May 30, 2012, Engel Paul Aca filed an
administrative complaint3 for disbarment against
Salvado for violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.014 and Canon 7,
Rule 7.035 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).”
FALLO: “WHEREFORE, the Court finds Atty. Ronaldo P. Salvado
GUILTY of violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Rule 7.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court
SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for a period of two (2)
years.”
FACTS:
1. Complainant alleged, among others, that sometime in
2010, he met Atty. Salvado through Atty. Samuel Divina (Atty.
Divina), his childhood friend; that Atty. Salvado introduced
himself as a lawyer and a businessman engaged in several
businesses including but not limited to the lending business;
that on the same occasion, Atty. Salvado enticed the
complainant to invest in his business with a guarantee that he
would be given a high interest rate of 5% to 6% every month;
and that he was assured of a profitable investment due by
Atty. Salvado as the latter had various clients and investors.
2. As consideration for these investments, Atty. Salvado issued
several post-dated checks in the total amount
P6,107,000.00, representing the principal amount plus interests.
3. All checks were drawn from PSBank. Upon presentment,
however, complainant was shocked to learn that the
aforementioned checks were dishonored as these were
drawn from insufficient funds or a closed account.
4. Atty. Divina personally served the Notice of Dishonor on
Atty. Salvado, directing him to settle his total obligation in the
amount of P747,000.00. Atty. Salvado refused to receive the
said notice.
- Complainant went to Atty. Salvado’s house to
personally serve the demand letter. A certain “Mark”
who opened the gate told the filing clerk that Atty.
Salvado was no longer residing there and had been
staying in the province already.
ISSUE:
1. WON ATTY. SALVADO should be suspended for he violated
CPR and the Lawyer’s Oath
RULING:
Atty.
1. YES
- The public is, indeed, inclined to rely on
representations made by lawyers. Simply put, Atty.
Salvado’s stature as a member of the Bar had, in one
way or another, influenced complainant’s decision
to invest.
- The excuse of “gullibility and inadvertence” deserves
scant consideration.
- Surely, Atty. Salvado is aware that promoting
obedience to the Constitution and the laws of the
land is the primary obligation of lawyers. When he
issued the worthless checks, he discredited the legal
profession and created the public impression that
laws were mere tools of convenience that could be
used, bended and abused to satisfy personal whims
and desires. In Lao v. Medel, the Court wrote that
the issuance of worthless checks constituted gross
misconduct, and put the erring lawyer’s moral
character in serious doubt, though it was not related
to his professional duties as a member of the Bar.
Covered by this dictum is Atty. Salvado’s business
relationship with complainant. His issuance of the
subject checks display his doubtful fitness as an
officer of the court. Clearly, he violated Rule 1.01
and Rule 7.03 of the CPR.
of
CAPTION: e. Lilia Tabang and Concepcion Tabang vs Atty
Glenn Gacott, A C 6490, July 9. 2013
BADGE: Attorneys; Legal Ethics; It is clear that respondent
committed gross misconduct, dishonesty, and deceit in
violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
when he executed the revocations of Special Power of
Attorney (SPA) and affidavits of recovery and in arrogating for
himself the ownership of the seven (7) subject parcels
TICKLER: “This case involves a complaint for disbarment
directly filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)
6
• __
charging respondent Atty. Glenn Gacott of engaging in
unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct in violation
of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).”
FALLO: “WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT,
having clearly violated the Canons of Professional
Responsibility through his unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful
conduct, is DISBARRED and his name ordered STRICKEN from
the Roll of Attorneys.”
FACTS:
1. Lilia Tabang intended to purchase a total of thirty (30)
hectares of agricultural land located in Barangay Bacungan,
Puerto Princesa, Palawan, which consisted of several parcels
belonging to different owners. Judge
2. Gacott noted that under the governmentÊs agrarian
reform program, Tabang was prohibited from acquiring
vast tracts of agricultural land as she already owned other
parcels. Thus, Judge Gacott advised her to put the titles of the
parcels under the names of fictitious persons.2
Eventually, Lilia Tabang was able to purchase seven parcels
and obtained the corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title
(TCT) under the names of fictitious persons, as follows:
1. TCT No. 12475 – Amelia Andes;
2. TCT No. 12476 – Wilfredo Ondoy;
3. TCT No. 12790 – Agnes Camilla;
4. TCT No. 12791 – Leonor Petronio;
5. TCT No. 12792 – Wilfredo Gomez;
6. TCT No. 12793 – Elizabeth Dungan; and
7. TCT No. 12794 – Andes Estoy.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the respondent engaged in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct violating Rule 1.01 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, thus warranting his
disbarment.
RULING:
1. Yes,
- the Court concurs with and adopts the findings and
recommendation of Commissioner Limpingco and
the IBP Board of Governors.
- While it may be true that complainant Lilia Tabang
herself engaged in illicit activities, the complainant’s
own complicity does not negate, or even mitigate,
the repugnancy of respondent’s offense.
- Quite the contrary, his offense is made even graver.
He is a lawyer who is held to the highest standards of
morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing.
Perverting what is expected of him, he deliberately
and cunningly took advantage of his knowledge
and skill of the law to prejudice and torment other
individuals.
- Not only did he countenance illicit action, he
instigated it. Not only did he acquiesce to injustice,
he orchestrated it. Thus, the Court imposes upon
respondent the supreme penalty of disbarment.
CAPTION: Pedro L Linsangan v Atty Tolenhno, A.0 6672,
September 4. 2009
BADGE: Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Disbarment; Malpractice;
Solicitations; Advertisements; Time and time again, lawyers
are reminded that the practice of law is a profession and not
a business·lawyers should not advertise their talents as
merchants advertise their wares
TICKLER: “This is a complaint for disbarment1 filed by Pedro
Linsangan of the Linsangan Linsangan & Linsangan Law
Office against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of
clients and encroachment of professional services.”
FALLO: “WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino
for violating Rules 1.03, 2.03, 8.02 and 16.04 and Canon 3 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 27, Rule
138 of the Rules of Court is hereby SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of one year effective immediately
from receipt of this resolution. He is STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be
dealt with more severely.”
FACTS:
1. A complaint for disbarment was filed by Pedro Linsangan
against Atty. Nicomedes Tolentino for solicitation of clients
and encroachment of professional services. Linsangan
alleged that Atty Tolentino, with the help of paralegal Fe
Marie Labiano, convinced his clients to transfer legal
representation.
7
• __

2. Labiano promised them financial assistance and expenses (such as filing fees,
expeditious collection on their claims. To induce them to hire stenographer’s fees for transcript of
his services, he persistently called them and sent them text stenographic notes, cash bond or premium
messages. To support his allegations, Linsangan presented the for surety bond, etc.) for a matter that he is
sworn affidavit of James Gregorio attesting that Labiano tried handling for the client.
to prevail upon him to sever his lawyer-client relations with
- The rule is intended to safeguard the lawyer’s
complainant and utilize respondent’s services instead, in
independence of mind so that the free exercise of
exchange for a loan of P50, 000.00. Linsangan also attached
his judgment may not be adversely affected.
Atty. Tolentino’s calling card:

- It seeks to ensure his undivided attention to the case

he is handling as well as his entire devotion and
fidelity to the client’s cause.

- If the lawyer lends money to the client in connection

with the client’s case, the lawyer in effect acquires
an interest in the subject matter of the case or an
additional stake in its outcome. Either of these
circumstances may lead the lawyer to consider his
own recovery rather than that of his client, or to
accept a settlement which may take care of his
interest in the verdict to the prejudice of the client in
violation of his duty of undivided fidelity to the
client’s cause.

Atty. Tolentino, in his defense, denied knowing Labiano and

authorizing the printing and circulation of the said calling
card. PROFESSIONAL CALLING CARDS MAY ONLY CONTAIN:
(LINSANGAN V. TOLENTINO)
ISSUE:
1. LAWYER NAME
1. Whether or not respondent is in violation of Rule 16.04 of the 2. NAME OF FIRM
Code of Professional Responsibility
3. ADDRESS
4. TELEPHONE NUMBER
RULING: 5. SPECIAL BRANCH OF LAW PRACTICED.
1. Yes.

- By engaging in a money-lending venture with his

clients as borrowers, respondent violated
ANNOUNCE ONLY IN:

- Rule 16.04: Rule 16.04 – A lawyer shall not borrow 1. Only allowed by publication in reputable law
money from his client unless the client’s interests are list.
fully protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend
money to a client except, when in the interest of
justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a
---------------------------------------------------------
legal matter he is handling for the client. The rule is
that a lawyer shall not lend money to his client. The Rule 1.02 - A lawyer shall not counsel or abet
only exception is, when in the interest of justice, he activities aimed at defiance of the law or at
has to advance necessary expenses (such as filing lessening confidence in the legal system.
fees, stenographer’s fees for transcript of ---------------------------------------------------------
stenographic notes, cash bond or premium for
---------------------------------------------------------
surety bond, etc.) for a matter that he is handling for
the client. Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt
motive or interest, encourage any suit or
- The rule is that a lawyer shall not lend money to his
proceeding or delay any man's cause.
client.
---------------------------------------------------------
- The only exception is, when in the interest
---------------------------------------------------------
of justice, he has to advance necessary

8
• __
Rule 1.04 - A lawyer shall encourage his clients to
avoid, end or settle a controversy if it will admit of a
fair settlement.
---------------------------------------------------------
CANON 2 - A LAWYER SHALL MAKE HIS
LEGAL SERVICES AVAILABLE IN AN
EFFICIENT AND CONVENIENT MANNER
COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDEPENDENCE,
INTEGRITY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
PROFESSION.
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2.01 - A lawyer shall not reject, except for valid
reasons, the cause of the defenseless or the
oppressed.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2.02 - In such cases, even if the lawyer does
not accept a case, he shall not refuse to render
legal advice to the person concerned if only to the
extent necessary to safeguard the latter's rights.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2.03 - A lawyer shall not do or permit to be
done any act designed primarily to solicit legal
business.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 2.04 - A lawyer shall not charge rates lower
than those customarily prescribed unless the
circumstances so warrant.
---------------------------------------------------------
SOLICITATION OF LEGAL BUSINESS
CAPTION: YU V. BONDAL AC NO. 5534 2005
BADGE: Solicitation of Legal Services
TICKLER: “Atty. Renato Lazaro Bondal (respondent) stands
charged in a complaint1 filed by Jayne Y. Yu (complainant)
for gross negligence and violation of Canon 16 and Rule 16.03
of the Code of Professional Responsibility arising from his
alleged failure to attend to the five cases she referred to him
and to return, despite demand, the amount of P51,716.54 she
has paid him.”
FALLO: “WHEREFORE, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED.
Respondent is, however, hereby directed to RETURN all the
records in his possession relative to the cases he handled for
complainant.”
FACTS:
1. On March 30, 2000, she engaged the services of
respondent as counsel.
2. In the Retainer Agreement5 dated March 30, 2000,
complainant agreed to pay respondent the amount of
P200,000.00 as Acceptance Fee for the five cases, with an
Appearance Fee of P1,500.00 pesos per hearing; and in the
event that damages are recovered, she would pay
respondent 10% thereof as success fee.
3. Complainant later issued two checks, BPI Family Bank No.
94944 and BPI Family Bank No. 94968, dated February 20, 2001
and April 5, 2001 in the amount of P30,000.00 and P21,716.54,
respectively.
- COMPLAINANT ASSAILS: Despite receipt of above-
said amounts, respondent failed to file a case
against Swire Realty and Development Corp;7 due
to respondentÊs negligence, the case for estafa
against Lourdes Fresnoza Boon was dismissed by the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Makati City and was
not timely appealed to the Department of Justice;8
respondent negligently failed to inform complainant,
before she left for abroad,
- Respondent thus demanded from respondent, by
letter11 of June 14, 2001, for the return of all the
records she had entrusted him bearing on the
subject cases.
- Respondent did return but only the records
bearing on the estafa case against Lourdes
Fresnoza Boon and the B.P. Blg. 22 case
against Mona Lisa San Juan.
- Complainant through counsel thus
demanded, by letter13 of August 8, 2001,
the return of the rest of the files, particularly
that dealing with Swire Realty and
Development Corporation and Julie Teh.
- In the same letter, complainant also
demanded the refund of the amounts
covered by the above-said two BPI Family
Bank Checks amounting to P51,716.54,
they being intended to represent payment
of filing fees for the case against Swire
Realty and Development Corporation
which respondent failed to file.
6. The Office of the Bar Confidant, by Report and
Recommendation,28 recommends the dismissal of the
complaint for failure of complainant to substantiate it.
- From the records of the case, it is culled that except
for the case against Swire Development
Corporation, the other 4 cases referred by
complainant to respondent were filed in court but
were dismissed or terminated for causes not
attributable to respondent.
ISSUE:
1. W/N respondent failed to render his services and should
refund the amount of P51,716.54
RULING:
1. RULING:
9
• __
1. NO, the respondent did not fail to render his services
- From the records of the case, it is culled that except
for the case against Swire Development Corporation,
the other 4 cases referred by complainant to
respondent were filed in court but were dismissed or
terminated for causes not attributable to
respondent.
- If, admittedly, the only payment given to
complainant by respondent is the amount of
P51,716.54, then complainant still owes respondent
more, as respondent rendered his legal services in 4
out of the 5 cases. An acceptance fee is not a
contingent fee, but is an absolute fee arrangement
which entitles a lawyer to get paid for his efforts
regardless of the outcome of the litigation.
- That complainant was dissatisfied with the
outcome of the four cases does not render
void the above retainer agreement for
respondent appears to have represented
the interest of complainant.
- Litigants need to be reminded that lawyers
are not demi-gods or magicians who can
always win their cases for their clients no
matter the utter lack of merit of the same
or how passionate the litigants may feel
about their cause.
- However, since respondent had been advised by
complainant through counsel Chavez Laureta and
Associates, by letter of July 18, 2001, that she
intended to terminate his services, as of said date,
he was obliged, under Rule 22.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, viz.:
CAPTION: Ulep vs. Legal Clinic 223 SCRA 378
FACTS:
Mauricio C. Ulep, petitioner, prays this Court "to order the
respondent, The Legal Clinic, Inc., to cease and desist from
issuing advertisements similar to or of the same tenor as that
of Annexes `A' and `B' (of said petition) and to perpetually
prohibit persons or entities from making advertisements
pertaining to the exercise of the law profession other than
those allowed by law.” The advertisements complained of by
herein petitioner are as follows:
Annex A
SECRET MARRIAGE?
P560.00 for a valid marriage.
Info on DIVORCE. ABSENCE.
ANNULMENT. VISA.
Please call: 521-0767,
LEGAL5217232, 5222041
CLINIC, INC.8:30 am-6:00 pm
7-Flr. Victoria Bldg. UN Ave., Mla.
Annex B
GUAM DIVORCE
DON PARKINSON
an Attorney in Guam, is giving FREE BOOKS on Guam Divorce
through The Legal Clinic beginning Monday to Friday during
office hours.
Guam divorce. Annulment of Marriage. Immigration
Problems, Visa Ext.
Quota/Non-quota Res. & Special Retiree's Visa. Declaration of
Absence.
Remarriage to Filipina Fiancees. Adoption. Investment in the
Phil. US/Foreign
Visa for Filipina Spouse/Children. Call Marivic.
THE 7 F Victoria Bldg. 429 UN Ave.
LEGALErmita, Manila nr. US Embassy
CLINIC, INC. Tel. 521-7232521-7251522-2041; 521-0767
It is the submission of petitioner that the advertisements above
reproduced are champertous, unethical, demeaning of the
law profession, and destructive of the confidence of the
community in the integrity of the members of the bar and
that, as a member of the legal profession, he is ashamed and
offended by the said advertisements, hence the reliefs sought
in his petition as herein before quoted.
In its answer to the petition, respondent admits the fact of
publication of said advertisements at its instance, but claims
that it is not engaged in the practice of law but in the
rendering of "legal support services" through paralegals with
the use of modern computers and electronic machines.
Respondent further argues that assuming that the services
advertised are legal services, the act of advertising these
services should be allowed supposedly in the light of the
caseof John R. Bates and Van O'Steen vs. State Bar of
Arizona, reportedly decidedby the United States Supreme
Court on June 7, 1977.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the services offered by respondent, The Legal
Clinic, Inc., as advertised by it constitutes practice of law.
2. Whether the same can properly be the subject of the
advertisements herein complained of.
RULING:
1. The services being offered by private respondent which
constitute practice of law cannot be performed by
paralegals. Only a person duly admitted as a member of the
bar, or hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the
provisions of the Rules of Court, and who is in good moral
character.
- The practice of law is not a lawful business except
for members of the bar who have complied with all
the conditions required by statute and the rules of
court.
2. It is highly unethical for an attorney to advertise his talents
or skill as a merchant advertises his wares. Law is a profession
and not a trade. The lawyer degrades himself and his
profession who stoops to and adopts the practices of
mercantilism by advertising his services or offering them to the
public. Lawyer lowers the standards of the profession.
CAPTION: U.S. v. Ney and Bosque, 8 Phil 146 (1907)
FACTS:
1. This case involves two lawyers, an American, C.W. Ney, and
a Spaniard, Juan Garcia Bosque, who sent out a circular,
10
• __
signed "Ney and Bosque", stating that they had established an
office for the general practice of law in all courts of the Islands
and that Bosque would devote himself especially to
consultation and office work relating to Spanish Law. Both
were accused of contempt of court.
ISSUE:
1. Should either of these defendants be thus punished for
contempt Section 232 of the Code of Civil Procedure
describes contempt as follows: 1. Disobedience of or
resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, judgment, or
command of a court, or injunction granted by a court or
judge;
2. Misbehavior of an officer of the court in the performance of
his official duties or in his official transactions.
RULING:
1. As regards the Spaniard, it was held that a former order of
this Court denying his admission to the practice of in the
Philippines, on account of alienage, "was directly binding
upon him;" that the aforementioned circular "amounted to an
assertation of his right and purpose" to engage in such
practice of law; and that "consequently the conduct of the
defendant Bosque amounts to disobedience of an order
made in a proceeding to which he was a party."
2. As regards Ney, he was found guilty of "misbehaviour"
committed by "an officer of the court.
CAPTION: SAMONTE vs. ATTY. GATDULA A.M. No. P-99-1292
February 26, 1999
FACTS:
1. The complaint filed by Julieta Borromeo Samonte charges
Rolando R. Gatdula, RTC, Branch 220, Quezon City with grave
misconduct consisting in the alleged engaging in the private
practice of law which is in conflict with his official functions as
Branch Clerk of Court. Complainant alleges that she is the
authorized representative of her sister Flor Borromeo de Leon,
the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 37-14552 for ejectment filed with
the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37. A
typographical error was committed in the complaint which
stated that the address of defendant is No. 63-C instead of
63-B, P. Tuazon Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City. The mistake was
rectified by the filing of an amended complaint which was
admitted by the Court.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the name of Atty. Gatdula, appearing on the
calling card, gives the impression that he is connected with
the law firm and constitutes an act of solicitation and private
practice which is declared unlawful under Republic Act No.
6713
1. YES. it is a violation
- Dimailig and Celera with address at 220 Mariwasa
Bldg., 717 Aurora Blvd., Cubao, Quezon City" in the
left comer. The card clearly gives the impression that
he is connected with the said law firm.
- The inclusion/retention of his name in the
professional card constitutes an act of solicitation
which violates Section 7 sub-par. (b)(2) of Republic
Act No. 6713, otherwise known as "Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees" which declares it unlawful for a public
official or employee to, among others:
- "(2) Engage in the private practice of their
profession unless authorized by the
Constitution or law, provided that such
practice will not conflict or tend to conflict
with official functions."
- Time and again the SC has said that the conduct
and behavior of every one connected with an
office charged with the dispensation of justice, from
the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk. should be
circumscribed with the heavy burden of
responsibility. His conduct, at all times must not only
be characterized by proprietor and decorum but
above all else must be above suspicion.
- The SC found however, that while the respondent
vehemently denies the complainant's allegations, he
does not deny that his name appears on the calling
card attached to the complaint which admittedly
came into the hands of the complainant.
- Respondent does not claim that the calling card was
printed without his knowledge or consent and the
calling card carries his name primarily and the
name of "Baligod, Gatdula, Tacardon,
CAPTION: PP v. Gonzales, Jr., G.R. No. 139542. June 10, 2003
FACTS:
1. A resolution of the Supreme Court dated June 10, 2003 was
quoted under G.R. No. 139542 (People Of The Philippines vs.
Inocencio Gonzalez, Jr.).
2. It refers to the Motion filed by Pastelero Law office seeking
to clarify whether the firm of Velasquez, Rodriguez, Respicio,
Ramos, Nidea, and Prado, counsel for the private
complainant-appellee, may call itself “A law Firm of St.
Thomas More and Associate Members”.
3. In the Motion for Clarification, movant asks: “If lawyers and
law firms are allowed to call themselves the law firm of St.
Thomas More, what will prevent other lawyers and law firms
from claiming they are the law firm of St. Josemaria Escriva
who was also a lawyer and recently canonized, or the law
firm of St. Peter and Paul, or even the law firm of Jesus Christ
himself?” Directed to comment, the Office of the Bar
Confidant (OBC) invokes, Rule 3.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which states that “in the choice of a
firm name, no false, misleading or assumed name shall be
used.”
ISSUE: 1. Whether or not the name of the lawyers “The Law Firm
of St. Thomas More and Associate Members” is misleading.
11
• __
RULING:
1. The Supreme Court (SC) agrees with the OBC. Rule 3.02 is
clear.
- No name not belonging to any of the partners or
associates may be used in the firm name for any
purpose. In one case (Dacanay vs. Baker &
Mckenzie, Adm. Case No. 2131, May 10, 1985, 136
SCRA 349), the SC has ruled that the use of the firm
name of a foreign law firm is unethical because that
firm is not authorized to practice law in this
jurisdiction.
- In this case, “The Law Firm of St. Thomas More and
Associate Members” is not a law firm in this
jurisdiction or even in any other jurisdiction. A “St.
Thomas More and Associates” or STMA is in fact the
socio-political ministry or the couples for Christ, a
Christian family-renewal community. As pointed out
by the OBC: To appellate to the name of the lawyers
“The Law Firm of St. Thomas More and Associate
Members” indeed appears misleading. It implies that
St. Thomas More is a Law Firm when in fact it is not it
would also convey to the public the impression that
the lawyers are members of the law firm which does
not exist. To the public, it would seem that the
purpose or intention of adding “The Law Firm of St.
Thomas More and Associates Members” is to bask in
the name of a Saint, although that may not really,
be the purpose or intention of the lawyers. The
appellation only tends to confuse the public and in
a way demean both the saints and the legal
profession whose members must depend on their
own name and record and merit and not on the
name/glory of other persons living or dead.
CAPTION: In re- Tagorda, 53 Phil 37 (1929)
BADGE: ·The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a
ground for disbarment or suspension.
FACTS:
1. Luis B. Tagorda is a practicing attorney and a member of
the provincial Board of Isabela. He made use of a card that
was in Spanish and Ilocano which advertised his services as
an attorney and notary public.
- The card also advertised his services in acquiring
homesteads and affidavit.
2. Also presented in the case was a letter Tagorda made
addressed to a lieutenant in his home barrio asking the latter
to inform his friends, relatives and the public in general that
despite his election to the board he would still be offering his
services as lawyer and notary public.
- In the letter he also mentions his rates for aid in land
registration (3 pesos per registration).
ISSUE:
1. W/N Tagorda violated law in advertising his services as a
lawyer and notary public.
RULING:
1. YES, but not disbarred
- The solicitation of employment by an attorney is a
ground for disbarment. It is a violation of the (then)
Canons of Professional Ethics. But due to the fact
that Tagorda was unaware of the impropriety of his
acts, his youth and inexperience at the bar and his
promise not to commit a similar mistake in the future,
only a modest suspension is deemed by the court as
punishment. Tagorda is suspended for a period of 1
month.
CAPTION: In re- Krasner 204 N.E 2d 10 (1965)
BADGE: Division of fees to procure law business
TICKLER: “The Board of Managers and Committee on
Grievances of the Chicago Bar Association, as commissioners
of this court under Rule 59, have filed a report recommending
that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a
period of five years on the basis of findings that he had
unethically engaged in conduct which constituted a division
of fees with laymen and the employment of solicitors to
procure law business. Respondent, a 50-year-old practitioner
who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1938, has filed
exceptions to the report contending there is no evidence to
support such findings.”
FALLO: “Under all of the circumstances it is our opinion that
the extreme penalty of disbarment is not warranted; however,
upon a careful consideration it is our opinion that respondent
should be suspended from the practice of law for one year.
Respondent suspended.”
FACTS:
1. DIVISION OF FEES TO PROCURE LAW BUSINESS
ISSUE:
1. W/N improper practices were engaged and is still
reprimandable
1. YES
- In imposing discipline we are not unmindful of its
effect on respondent's professional future, nor do we
overlook the testimony of his character witnesses or
the circumstance that he co-operated with the
commissioners in this proceeding. While such factors
do bear weight where, as here, the charges against
an attorney do not import criminality or moral
turpitude, at the same time they do not relieve this
court of its obligation to take proper disciplinary
action if the charges of improper and unprofessional
conduct are found to be true. (In re Harris, 383 Ill.
336.) We are aware, too, that respondent has had
no dealings with Vogele or Skidmore for a number of
years, and that he apparently terminated the
relationship with these men of his own accord. Once
12
• __
again, however, the mere cessation of improper
practices does not serve to completely exonerate
an attorney for his past misdeeds, nor to forestall all
discipline.
CAPTION: GEFFEN V MOSS 1975
BADGE: : Solicitation of legal services
FALLO: “The judgment is modified by striking therefrom that
portion awarding defendant attorney's fees. In all other
respects the judgment is affirmed.”
FACTS:
1. The pertinent provisions of the contract are as follows:
"Ralph J. Geffen, hereinafter designated as 'Geffen,' and
Russell J. Moss, hereinafter designated as 'Moss,' agree as
follows: "Geffen hereby sells to Moss the physical assets, files
and work in process of the law practice of Geffen located in
the City of Norwalk, except as hereinafter specified, on the
following terms and conditions:
2. Geffen agrees that he will not, so long as Moss is not in
default of any obligation to Geffen hereunder, maintain any
office for the practice of law within ten (10) miles of the City of
Norwalk nor hold himself out as in practice in said area for a
period of six (6) years following the execution of this
Agreement without the consent of Moss.
3. That the plaintiff per the terms of the contract expressed his
intention to exert his influence for the continued welfare of the
practice and to encourage present and former clients to
utilize the legal services of the law office in the future; and
that pursuant thereto he did thereafter with the aid of the
defendant prepare and circulate the letter of announcement,
Exhibit 9.
4. That both plaintiff and defendant considered the
expectation of future business from present and former clients
as a principal motivating factor in this sale transaction.
- That without the expectation and hope of future
patronage by existing and former clients of the
office, the value of the law office would not exceed
$15,000.00. [53 Cal. App. 3d 221]
The [53 Cal. App. 3d 218] total purchase price was $27,500.
Fifteen thousand dollars was paid in accordance with the
terms of the contract. The action seeks to recover an
unpaid balance of $12,500 plus attorney's fees and costs.
5. That the expected business from former and current clients
of the plaintiff did not materialize and the defendant has
utilized that opportunity; and the plaintiff has received the fair
value for the physical assets transferred pursuant to the
agreement."
6. That the sale or attempted sale of the good will of the law
practice is contrary to public policy and against the spirit and
intent of Rules 2 and 3 of Section 6076 of the Business and
Professions Code, 'The State Bar Act' and of the ABA Canons
of Ethics No. 4, EC 4-6, prohibiting the sale of a law practice
as a going business.
ISSUE:
1. W/N sale or attempted sale of the good will of the law
practice is against the canons of legal ethics
RULING:
1. Yes, it is against the canons of legal ethics
- We agree that, insofar as the parties purport to sell
the physical assets and to assign the leasehold and
dispose of pending office [53 Cal. App. 3d 226]
matters, the agreement does not violate public
policy as expressed in the canons of legal ethics.
- However, it appears obvious to us that both parties,
recognizing a limitation against the sale of good will,
nevertheless attempted to avoid a proscription
against such by deliberately failing to mention good
will as such in the agreement. We cannot say that
the trial court's resolution of the matter was
unreasonable. The attempted sale of the
expectation of future patronage by former and
current clients of a law office coupled with an
agreement to encourage said clients to continue to
patronize the purchaser of the physical assets of the
office, under the facts of this case, may well be said
to constitute an attempt to buy and sell the good will
of a law practice as a going business, contrary to
public policy, and that the portion of the agreement
purporting to so do is invalid and unenforceable.
- The following language found in Linnick v. State Bar,
62 Cal. 2d 17, 21 [41 Cal. Rptr. 1, 396 P.2d 33],
although involving the activities of a lay person and
an attorney, indicates the existence of applicable
ethical considerations: "Rule 3 of the Rules of
Professional Conduct, however, prohibits an attorney
from remunerating another for either 'soliciting' or
'obtaining' employment for him.
- Whether or not a lay intermediary solicits
the business referred, he may not keep the
best interests of the clients paramount
when he profits from his referrals. He is likely
to refer claimants, not to the most
competent attorney, but to the one who is
compensating him.
- Even though such is not deemed contrary to public
policy, the following language in Lyon v. Lyon, 246
Cal. App. 2d 519, 524, 526 [54 Cal. Rptr. 829], renders
an attempted sale of good will of a law practice
suspect:
- "The nature of a professional partnership for
the practice of law, the reputation of which
depends on the skill, training and
experience of each individual member,
and the personal and confidential
relationship existing between each such
member and the client, places such a
partnership in a class apart from other
business and professional partnerships. The
legal profession stands in a peculiar
13
• __
relation to the public and the relationship
existing between the members of the
profession and those who seek its services
cannot be likened to the relationship of a
merchant to his customer. (Barton v. State
Bar, 209 Cal. [53 Cal. App. 3d 227] 677, 682
[289 P. 818].)
- Thus, our research has brought to light no
case in this jurisdiction in which an
allowance was made to a partner for
goodwill upon the dissolution of a
partnership created for the practice of
law."
CAPTION: Director of Religious Affairs v. Bayot, A.C.No. L-1117,
March 20, 1944
TICKLER: “The respondent, who is an attorney-at-law, is
charged with malpractice for having published an
advertisement in the Sunday Tribune of June 13, 1943, which
reads as follows:”
FALLO: “Considering his plea for leniency and his promise not
to repeat the misconduct, the Court is of the opinion and so
decided that the respondent should be, as he hereby is,
reprimanded.”
FACTS:
1. Appearing in his own behalf, respondent at first denied
having published the said advertisement; but subsequently,
thru his attorney, he admitted having caused its publication
and prayed for "the indulgence and mercy" of the Court,
promising "not to repeat such professional misconduct in the
future and to abide himself to the strict ethical rules of the law
profession." In further mitigation he alleged that the said
advertisement was published only once in the Tribune and
that he never had any case at law by reason thereof.
ISSUE:
1. WON the advertisement is unethical
RULING:
1. YES
- It is undeniable that the advertisement in question
was a flagrant violation by the respondent of the
ethics of his profession, it being a brazen solicitation
of business from the public
CAPTION: Dacanay v. Baker & Mc Kenzie, et. al. Adm. Case
No. 2131 (1985)
BADGE: Attorneys; Use by Philippine lawyers of the firm name
of an American law firm is unethical.·
TICKLER: “Lawyer Adriano E. Dacanay, admitted to the bar in
1954, in his 1980 verified complaint, sought to enjoin Juan G.
Collas, Jr. and nine other lawyers from practising law under
the name of Baker & McKenzie, a law firm organized in
Illinois.”
FALLO: “WHEREFORE, the respondents are enjoined from
practising law under the firm name Baker & McKenzie.”
ISSUE:
1. Can foreign law firm name be used?
RULING:
1. NO
- We hold that Baker & McKenzie, being an alien law
firm, cannot practice law in the Philippines (Sec. 1,
Rule 138, Rules of Court). As admitted by the
respondents in their memorandum, Baker &
McKenzie is a professional partnership organized in
1949 in Chicago, Illinois with members and
associates in 30 cities around the world.
Respondents, aside from being members of the
Philippine bar, practising under the firm name of
Guerrero & Torres, are members or associates of
Baker & Mckenzie.
CAPTION: In re R.M.J. 455 U.S. 191 1982
FALLO:
FACTS:
- Rule 4 of the Missouri Supreme Court, regulating
advertising by lawyers, states that a lawyer may include 10
categories of information in a published advertisement:
name, address and telephone number; areas of practice;
date and place of birth; schools attended; foreign language
ability; office hours; fee for an initial consultation;
availability of a schedule of fees; credit arrangements; and
the fixed fee to be charged for certain "routine" legal
services.
ISSUE:
1. Appellant claimed that each of the restrictions upon
advertising was unconstitutional under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments, but the Missouri Supreme
Court upheld the constitutionality of Rule 4 and issued a
private reprimand.
14
• __

RULING:

(a) Although the States retain the ability to regulate

commercial speech, such as lawyer advertising that is
inherently misleading or that has proved to be misleading
in practice, the First and Fourteenth Page 455 U. S. 192

Amendments require that they do so with care and in a

manner no more extensive than reasonably necessary to
further substantial interests. Pp. 455 U. S. 199-204.

(b) Because the listing published by appellant -- e.g., "real

estate" instead of "property law" as specified by Rule 4,
and "contracts" and "securities," which were not included
in the Rule's listing -- has not been shown to be misleading,
and appellee suggests no substantial interest promoted by
the restriction, the portion of Rule 4 specifying the areas of
practice that may be listed is an invalid restriction upon
speech as applied to appellant's advertisements. P. 455 U.
S. 205.

(c) Nor has appellee identified any substantial interest in

prohibiting a lawyer from identifying the jurisdictions in
which he is licensed to practice. Such information is not
misleading on its face. That appellant was licensed to
practice in both Illinois and Missouri is factual and highly
relevant information, particularly in light of the geography
of the region in which he practices. While listing the
relatively uninformative fact that he is a member of the
United States Supreme Court Bar could be misleading,
there was no finding to this effect by the Missouri Supreme
Court, there is nothing in the record to indicate it was
misleading, and the Rule does not specifically identify it as
potentially misleading. Pp. 455 U. S. 205-206.
(d) With respect to the restriction on announcement cards,
while mailings may be more difficult to supervise, there is
no indication in the record that an inability to supervise is
the reason the State restricts the potential audience of the
cards. Nor is it clear that an absolute prohibition is the only
solution, and there is no indication of a failed effort to
proceed along a less restrictive path. P. 455 U. S. 206.
CANON 3 - A LAWYER IN MAKING
KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE
ONLY TRUE, HONEST, FAIR, DIGNIFIED AND
OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT
OF FACTS.
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 3.01 - A lawyer shall not use or permit the use
of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or
claim regarding his qualifications or legal services.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 3.02 - In the choice of a firm name, no false,
misleading or assumed name shall be used. The
continued use of the name of a deceased partner
is permissible provided that the firm indicates in all
its communications that said partner is deceased.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 3.03 - Where a partner accepts public office,
he shall withdrawal from the firm and his name shall
be dropped from the firm name unless the law
allows him to practice law currently.
---------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 3.04 - A lawyer shall not pay or give anything
of value to representatives of the mass media in

15
• __
anticipation of, or in return for, publicity to attract
legal business.
---------------------------------------------------------
CANON 4 - A LAWYER SHALL PARTICIPATE
IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM
BY INITIATING OR SUPPORTING EFFORTS IN
LAW REFORM AND IN THE IMPROVEMENT
OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
CANON 5 - A LAWYER SHALL KEEP
ABREAST OF LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS,
PARTICIPATE IN CONTINUING LEGAL
EDUCATION PROGRAMS, SUPPORT
EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE HIGH STANDARDS IN
LAW SCHOOLS AS WELL AS IN THE
PRACTICAL TRAINING OF LAW STUDENTS
AND ASSIST IN DISSEMINATING THE LAW
AND JURISPRUDENCE.
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY
TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICES
IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR TASKS.
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in
public prosecution is not to convict but to see that
justice is done. The suppression of facts or the
concealment of witnesses capable of establishing
the innocence of the accused is highly
reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 6.03 - A lawyer shall not, after leaving
government service, accept engagement or
employment in connection with any matter in
which he had intervened while in said service.
---------------------------------------------------------
CHAPTER II. THE LAWYER AND THE LEGAL
PROFESSION
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES
UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF
THE LEGAL PROFESSION AND SUPPORT THE
ACTIVITIES OF THE INTEGRATED BAR.
CAPTION: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR,
complainant, vs. JUDGE CADER P. INDAR, Presiding Judge and
Acting Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14,
Cotabato City and Branch 15, Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao,
respectively, respondent.
FACTS:
* In addition, Judge IndarÊs dishonest act of issuing decisions
making it appear that the annulment cases underwent trial
and complied with the Rules of Court, laws, and established
jurisprudence violates the lawyerÊs oath to „do no falsehood,
nor consent to the doing of any in court.‰ Such violation is
16
• __
also a ground for disbarment. Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules
of Court provides
ISSUE:
1. W/N Judge’s act of making it appear that annulment cases
underwent trial when it did not is a ground for disbarment
RULING:
1. YES
- It cannot be denied that respondentÊs dishonesty
did not only affect the image of the judiciary, it also
put his moral character in serious doubt and
rendered him unfit to continue in the practice of
law. Possession of good moral character is not only a
prerequisite to admission to the bar but also a
continuing requirement to the practice of law. If the
practice of law is to remain an honorable profession
and attain its basic ideals, those counted within its
ranks should not only master its tenets and principles
but should also accord continuing fidelity to them.
The requirement of good moral character is of much
greater import, as far as the general public is
concerned, than the possession of legal learning.‰
(Emphasis supplied)
- Judge Indar is likewise DISBARRED for violation of
Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and his name ORDERED
STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 7.01 - A lawyer shall be answerable for
knowingly making a false statement or suppressing
a material fact in connection with his application
for admission to the bar.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 7.02 - A lawyer shall not support the
application for admission to the bar of any person
known by him to be unqualified in respect to
character, education, or other relevant attribute.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 7.03 - A lawyer shall not engage in conduct
that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law,
nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave
in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
---------------------------------------------------------
CAPTION: A.C. No. 4191. June 10, 2013.*
ANITA C. PEÑA, complainant, vs. ATTY. CHRISTINA C. PATERNO,
respondent.
FACTS:
* The issue resolved by the Investigating Commissioner was
whether or not there was clear and preponderant evidence
showing that respondent violated the Canons of Professional
Responsibility by (a) deceiving complainant Anita C. Peña;
(b) conspiring with Estrella Kraus and Engr. Ernesto Lampa to
enable the latter to register the subject property in his name;
and (c) knowingly notarizing a falsified contract of sale.
* The failure of respondent to submit to the proper RTC Clerk of
Court her Notarial Register/Report for the month of November
1986 and a copy of the Deed of Sale, which was notarized by
her within that month, has far-reaching implications and
grave consequences, as it in effect suppressed evidence on
the veracity of the said Deed of Sale and showed the
deceitful conduct of respondent to withhold the truth about its
authenticity.
* During her testimony, it was observed by the Investigating
Commissioner and reflected in the transcript of records that
respondent would neither directly confirm nor deny that she
notarized the said Deed of Sale.
- Rule 1.01·A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,
dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
- CANON 7·A lawyer shall at all times uphold the
integrity and dignity of the legal profession, and
support the activities of the Integrated Bar. Rule
7.03·A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that
adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor
should he, whether in public or private life, behave
in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal
profession.
ISSUE:
1. W/N respondent’s conduct were deceitful and can be
disbarred?
RULING:
1. YES
- The Bar Confidant is hereby DIRECTED to strike out
the name of Christina C. Paterno from the Roll of
Attorneys
- For the aforementioned deceitful conduct,
respondent is disbarred from the practice of law. As
a member of the bar, respondent failed to live up to
the standards embodied in the Code of Professional
Responsibility, particularly the following Canons:
- Same; Attorneys; Disbarment; The purpose of
disbarment is to protect the courts and the public
from the misconduct of the officers of the court and
to ensure the administration of justice by requiring
that those who exercise this important function shall
be competent, honorable and trustworthy men in
whom courts and clients may repose
confidence.·The purpose of disbarment is to protect
the courts and the public from the misconduct of
the officers of the court and to ensure the
administration of justice by requiring that those who
exercise this important function shall be competent,
honorable and trustworthy men in whom courts and
17
• __
clients may repose confidence. The burden of proof
rests upon the complainant, and the Court will
exercise its disciplinary power only if she
CAPTION: ROSARIO T. MECARAL, complainant, vs. ATTY.
DANILO S. VELASQUEZ, respondent.
FACTS:
* After respondent hired her as his secretary in 2002, she
became his lover and common-law wife. In October 2007,
respondent brought her to the mountainous Upper San
Agustin in Caibiran, Biliran where he left her with a religious
group known as the Faith Healers Association of the
Philippines, of which he was the leader.
* Although he visited her daily, his visits became scarce in
November to December 2007, prompting her to return home
to Naval.
* Furious, respondent brought her back to San Agustin where,
on his instruction, his followers tortured, brainwashed and
injected her with drugs. When she tried to escape on
December 24, 2007, the members of the group tied her
spread-eagled to a bed. Made to wear only a T-shirt and
diapers and fed stale food, she was guarded 24 hours a day
by the women members including a certain Bernardita Tadeo
* Her mother, Delia Tambis Vda. De Mecaral (Delia), having
received information that she was weak, pale and walking
barefoot along the streets in the mountainous area of
Caibiran, sought the help of the Provincial Social Welfare
Department which immediately dispatched two women
volunteers to rescue her. The religious group refused to
release her, however, without the instruction of respondent. It
took PO3 Delan G. Lee (PO3 Lee) and PO1 Arnel S. Robedillo
(PO1 Robedillo) to rescue and reunite her with her mother.
* Hence, the present disbarment complaint against
respondent. Additionally, complainant charges respondent
with bigamy for contracting a second marriage to Leny H.
Azur on August 2, 1996, despite the subsistence of his
marriage to his first wife, Ma. Shirley G. Yunzal.
ISSUE:
1. W/N respondent’s immoral conduct can be ground for
disbarrment
RULING:
1. YES
- Same; Same; Same; By engaging himself in acts
which are grossly immoral and acts which constitute
gross misconduct, respondent is disbarred.·In fine, by
engaging himself in acts which are grossly immoral
and acts which constitute gross misconduct
respondent has ceased to possess the qualifications
of a lawyer. Wherefore, respondent, Atty. Danilo S.
Velasquez, is DISBARRED,
- and his name ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of
Attorneys.
CAPTION:
A.C. No. 5816. March 10, 2015.*
DR. ELMAR O. PEREZ, complainant, vs. ATTY. TRISTAN A.
CATINDIG and ATTY. KAREN E. BAYDO, respondents.
FACTS:
* Sometime in 2001, Dr. Perez alleged that she received an
anonymous letter9 in the mail informing her of Atty. CatindigÊs
scandalous affair with Atty. Baydo, and that sometime later,
she came upon a love letter10 written and signed by Atty.
Catindig for Atty. Baydo dated April 25, 2001. In the said letter,
Atty. Catindig professed his love to Atty. Baydo, promising to
marry her once his „impediment is removed.‰ Apparently,
five months into their relationship, Atty. Baydo requested Atty.
Catindig to put a halt to their affair until such time that he is
able to obtain the annulment of his marriage. On August 13,
2001, Atty. Catindig filed a petition to declare the nullity of his
marriage to Gomez.11
* On October 31, 2001, Atty. Catindig abandoned Dr. Perez
and their son; he moved to an upscale condominium in
Salcedo Village, Makati City where Atty. Baydo was
frequently seen.12
ISSUE:
1. WON the respondents committed gross immorality, which
would warrant their disbarment.
RULING:
1. YES
- Contracting a marriage during the subsistence of a
previous one amounts to a grossly immoral conduct.
- There is insufficient evidence to prove the affair
between the respondents.
- As it is, the evidence that was presented by Dr. Perez
to prove her claim was mere allegation, an
anonymous letter informing her that the respondents
were indeed having an affair and the purported
love letter to Atty. Baydo that was signed by Atty.
Catindig. The Court has consistently held that in
suspension or disbarment proceedings against
lawyers, the lawyer enjoys the presumption of
innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the
complainant to prove the allegations in his
complaint.
- The evidence required in suspension or disbarment
proceedings is preponderance of evidence.
- A lawyer may be suspended or disbarred for any
misconduct showing any fault or deficiency in his
moral character, honesty, probity or good
demeanor.‰ Immoral conduct involves acts that
are willful, flagrant, or shameless, and that show a
moral indifference to the opinion of the upright and
respectable members of the community. Immoral
conduct is gross when it is so corrupt as to constitute
a criminal act, or so unprincipled as to be
reprehensible to a high degree, or when committed
under such scandalous or revolting circumstances as
to shock the communityÊs sense of decency.
18
• __

- Attorneys; Legal Ethics; Gross Immoral Conduct;
Disbarment; Suspension; Section 27, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court provides that a lawyer may be
removed or suspended from the practice of law,
inter alia, for grossly immoral conduct.·In this regard,
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court provides
that a lawyer may be removed or suspended from
the practice of law, inter alia, for grossly immoral
conduct. Thus: Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or
suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds.·A
member of the bar may be removed or suspended
from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for
any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct
in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason
of his conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is
required to take before the admission to practice, or
for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of a
superior court, or for corruptly or willful appearing as
an attorney for a party to a case without authority
so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for
the purpose of gain, either personally or through
paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice.
---------------------------------------------------------
1. W/N respondent imputed and used unethical language
against petitioner
RULING:
1. YES
- ACCORDINGLY, the Court AFFIRMS the May 22, 2008
Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors in CBD
Case 01- 809 and ORDERS the suspension of Atty.
Edwin Z. Ferrer, Sr. from the practice of law for one
year effective upon his receipt of this Decision.
- The use of intemperate language and unkind
ascriptions has no place in the dignity of judicial
forum.·Though a lawyerÊs language may be forceful
and emphatic, it should always be dignified and
respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal
profession. The use of intemperate language and
unkind ascriptions has no place in the dignity of
judicial forum. Atty. Ferrer ought to have realized
that this sort of public behavior can only bring down
the legal profession in the public estimation and
erode public respect for it. Whatever moral
righteousness Atty. Ferrer had was negated by the
way he chose to express his indignation.

CANON 8 - A LAWYER SHALL CONDUCT

- Canon 8 of the Code
HIMSELF WITH COURTESY, FAIRNESS AND commands all lawyers
courtesy, fairness and
CANDOR TOWARDS HIS PROFESSIONAL
lawyers and avoid
COLLEAGUES, AND SHALL AVOID opposing counsel.·
of Professional Responsibility
to conduct themselves with
candor towards their fellow
harassing tactics against

HARASSING TACTICS AGAINST

OPPOSING COUNSEL.
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive
or otherwise improper.
CAPTION: A.C. No. 5768. March 26, 2010.*
ATTY. BONIFACIO T. BARANDON, JR., complainant, vs.
ATTY. EDWIN Z. FERRER, SR., respondent.
FACTS:
* On November 22, 2000 Atty. Ferrer, as plaintiff Ês counsel in
Civil Case 7040, filed a reply with opposition to motion to
dismiss that contained abusive, offensive,and improper
language which insinuated that Atty. Barandon presented a
falsified document in court.
* On December 19, 2000, at the courtroom of Municipal Trial
Court (MTC) Daet before the start of hearing, Atty. Ferrer,
evidently drunk, threatened Atty. Barandon saying, „Laban
kung laban, patayan kung patayan, kasama ang lahat ng
pamilya. Wala na palang magaling na abogado sa
Camarines Norte, ang abogado na rito ay mga taga-
Camarines Sur, umuwi na kayo sa Camarines Sur, hindi kayo
tagarito.‰
ISSUE:
* The practice of law is a privilege given to lawyers who meet
the high standards of legal proficiency and morality. Any
violation of these standards exposes the lawyer to
administrative liability. Canon 8 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility commands all lawyers to conduct themselves
with courtesy, fairness and candor towards their fellow
lawyers and avoid harassing tactics against opposing
counsel. Specifically, in Rule 8.01, the Code provides: Rule
8.01.·A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use
language which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
Atty. FerrerÊs actions do not measure up to this Canon. The
evidence shows that he imputed to Atty. Barandon the
falsification of the Salaysay Affidavit of the plaintiff in Civil
Case 7040. He made this imputation with pure malice for he
had no evidence that the affidavit had been falsified and
that Atty. Barandon authored the same.
CAPTION: FOODSPHERE, INC., complainant, vs. ATTY. MELANIO
L. MAURICIO, JR., respondent.
FACTS:
* On August 28, 2004, respondent, in his radio program Double
B- Batas ng Bayan at radio station DZBB, announced the
holding of a supposed contest sponsored by said program,
which announcement was transcribed as follows:
“„OK, at meron akong pa-contest, total magpapasko na o
ha, meron pa-contest si Batas Mauricio ang Batas ng Bayan.
Ito yung ating pa-contest, hulaan ninyo, tatawag kayo sa

19
• __

another lawyer, however, it is the right of any

telepono, 433-7549 at 433-7553. Ang mga premyo
babanggitin po natin sa susunod pero ito muna ang contest, lawyer, without fear or favor, to give proper advice
o, Aling liver spread ang may uod?Ê Yan kita ninyo yan, ayan and assistance to those seeking relief against
malalaman ninyo yan. Pagka-nahulaan yan ah, at sasagot unfaithful or neglectful counsel.
kayo sa akin, aling liver spread ang may uod at anong
---------------------------------------------------------
companya ang gumagawa nyan? Itawag po ninyo sa 433-
7549 st 433-7553. Open po an[g] contest na ito sa lahat ng
ating tagapakinig. Pipiliin natin ang mananalo, kung tama
ang inyong sagot. Ang tanong, aling liver spread sa Pilipinas
an[g] may uod?8 (Emphasis and italics in the original;
underscoring supplied)”

* And respondent wrote in his columns in the tabloids articles

which put complainant in bad light. Thus, in the August 31-
September 6, 2004 issue of Balitang Patas BATAS, he wrote an
article captioned „KADIRI ANG CDO LIVER SPREAD!‰ In
another article, he wrote „IBA PANG PRODUKTO NG CDO
SILIPIN!‰9 which appeared in the same publication in its
September 7-13, 2004 issue. And still in the same publication,
its September 14-20, 2004 issue, he wrote another article
entitled „DAPAT BANG PIGILIN ANG CDO.‰10

ISSUE:
1. W/N or not it is ethical for a lawyer to make public
statements about a pending case.

RULING:
1. NO
- He violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, which mandates: „A lawyer shall not
make public statements in the media regarding a
pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or
against a party.‰
- While a lawyer is entitled to present his case with
vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify
the use of offensive and abusive
language·language abounds with countless
possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful,
convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not
offensive
- A lawyer shall not make public statements in the
media regarding a pending case tending to arouse
public opinion for or against a party.·The respondent
lawyer also violated Rule 13.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility, which mandates: A
---------------------------------------------------------
lawyer shall not make public statements in the
media regarding a pending case tending to arouse CANON 9 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT,
public opinion for or against a party. For despite the
pendency of the civil case against him and the DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST IN THE
issuance of a status quo order restraining/enjoining UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.
further publishing, televising and broadcasting of
---------------------------------------------------------
any matter relative to the complaint of CDO,
respondent continued with his attacks against Rule 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any
complainant and its products. At the same time, unqualified person the performance of any task
respondent violated Canon 1 also of the Code of
which by law may only be performed by a member
Professional Responsibility, which mandates lawyers
to „uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the of the bar in good standing.
land and promote respect for law and legal pro ---------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------

Rule 8.02 - A lawyer shall not, directly or indirectly,

encroach upon the professional employment of

20
• __
Rule 9.02 - A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to
divide a fee for legal services with persons not
licensed to practice law, except:
(a) Where there is a pre-existing agreement with a
partner or associate that, upon the latter's death,
money shall be paid over a reasonable period of
time to his estate or to persons specified in the
agreement; or
(b) Where a lawyer undertakes to complete
unfinished legal business of a deceased lawyer; or
(c) Where a lawyer or law firm includes non-lawyer
employees in a retirement plan even if the plan is
based in whole or in part, on a profit sharing
agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------
CAPTION:
A.C. No. 6116. August 1, 2012.
* ENGR. GILBERT TUMBOKON, complainant, vs. ATTY. MARIANO
R. PEFIANCO, respondent.
FACTS:
* In his Complaint,1 complainant narrated that respondent
undertook to give him 20% commission, later reduced to 10%,
of the attorneyÊs fees the latter would receive in representing
Spouses Amable and Rosalinda Yap (Sps. Yap), whom he
referred, in an action for partition of the estate of the late
Benjamin Yap (Civil Case No. 4986 before the Regional Trial
Court of Aklan). Their agreement was reflected in a letter2
* Furthermore, respondent did not deny the accusation that
he abandoned his legal family to cohabit with his mistress with
whom he begot four children notwithstanding that his moral
character as well as his moral fitness to be retained in the Roll
of Attorneys has been assailed.
ISSUE:
1. W/N respondent violated CPR worth of 1 year suspension
RULING:
1. YES
- As such, lawyers are expected to maintain at all
times a high standard of legal proficiency, morality,
honesty, integrity and fair dealing, and must perform
their four-fold duty to society, the legal profession,
the courts and their clients, in accordance with the
values and norms embodied in the Code.11 Lawyers
may, thus, be disciplined for any conduct that is
wanting of the above standards whether in their
professional or in their private capacity.
- WHEREFORE, respondent ATTY. MARIANO R. PE -
FIANCO is found GUILTY of violation of the LawyerÊs
Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Ê
Professional Responsibility and Rule 9.02, Canon 9 of
the same Code and SUSPENDED from the active
practice of law for ONE (1) YEAR effective upon
notice hereof.
CAPTION:
A.C. No. 4545. February 5, 2014.
CARLITO ANG, complainant, vs. ATTY. JAMES JOSEPH
GUPANA, respondent.
FACTS:
1. As to the Affidavit of Loss, which was allegedly
executed by the late Candelaria Magpayo on April
29, 1994, it could not have been executed by her as
she died[11] three years prior to the execution of the
said affidavit of loss.
2. Ang alleged that on September 22, 1995,
respondent made himself the attorney-in-fact of
William Magpayo, Antonio Diamante, Patricia
Diamante, Lolita Canque, Gregorio Diamante, Jr.
and Fe D. Montero, and pursuant to the Special
Power of Attorney in his favor, executed a Deed of
Sale[12] selling Lot No. 2066-B-2-B-4 to Lim Kim So
Mercantile Co. on October 10, 1995.
3. IBP Commission on Bar Discipline held that
respondent committed an unethical act when he
allowed himself to be an instrument in the disposal of
the subject property through a deed of sale
executed between him as attorney-in-fact of his
client and Lim Kim So Mercantile Co. despite his
knowledge that said property is the subject of a
pending litigation before the RTC of Mandaue City,
Cebu.
4. Atty. James Joseph Gupana administratively liable
and imposed on him the penalty of suspension for
one year from the practice of law and the
revocation of his notarial commission and
disqualification from reappointment as notary public
for two years.
5. The Investigating Commissioner additionally found
that respondent delegated the notarial functions to
the clerical staff of their office before being brought
to him for his signature. This, according to the
commissioner, „must have been the reason for the
forged signatures of the parties in the questioned
document as well as the erroneous entry in his
notarial register
6. Nonetheless, the Investigating Commissioner merely
reminded respondent to be more cautious in the
performance of his duties as regards his infraction of
his notarial duties.
7. Respondent likewise violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9, of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides that „[a] lawyer shall not delegate to any
unqualified person the performance of any task
which by law may only be performed by a member
of the Bar in good standing.
8. In merely relying on his clerical staff to determine the
completeness of documents brought to him for
notarization, limiting his participation in the
notarization process to simply inquiring about the
identities of the persons appearing before him, and
in notarizing an affidavit executed by a dead
21
• __

person, respondent is liable for misconduct. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the
the facts and circumstances of the case, the revocation of his notarial commission,
revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a
disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years and
notary public for a period of two years and suspension from the practice of law for one year are
suspension from the practice of law for one year are in order.
in order.

ISSUE:
1. W/N a lawyer can blame liability to clerical staff in fulfilment
of his notarial responsibilities?

RULING:
1. No.
- In merely relying on his clerical staff to determine the
completeness of documents brought to him for
notarization, limiting his participation in the
notarization process to simply inquiring about the
identities of the persons appearing before him, and
in notarizing an affidavit executed by a dead
person, respondent is liable for misconduct.
- WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. James Joseph
Gupana is found administratively liable for
misconduct and is SUSPENDED from the practice of
law for one year. Further, his notarial commission, if
any, is RA
- Same; Same; Code of Professional Responsibility; A
lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person
the performance of any task which by law may only
be performed by a member of the Bar in good
standing.·
- Respondent likewise violated Rule 9.01, Canon 9, of
the Code of Professional Responsibility which
provides that „[a] lawyer shall not delegate to any
unqualified person the performance of any task
which by law may only be performed by a member
of the Bar in good standing.Respondent averred in
his position paper that it had been his consistent
practice to course through clerical staff documents
to be notarized. Upon referral, said clerical staff
investigates whether the documents are complete
as to the fundamental requirements and inquires as
to the identity of the individual signatories thereto. If
everything is in order, they ask the parties to sign the
documents and forward them to him and he again
inquires about the identities of the parties before
affixing his notarial signature. It is also his clerical staff
who records entries in his notarial report. As
aforesaid, respondent is mandated to observe with
utmost care the basic requirements in the
performance of his duties as a notary and to
ascertain that the persons who signed the
documents are the very same persons who
executed and personally appeared before him to
attest to the contents and truth of what are stated
therein. In merely relying on his clerical staff to
determine the completeness of documents brought
to him for notarization, limiting his participation in the
notarization process to simply inquiring about the
identities of the persons appearing before him, and
in notarizing an affidavit executed by a dead
person, respondent is liable for misconduct. Under
CHAPTER III. THE LAWYER AND THE COURTS
CANON 10 - A LAWYER OWES CANDOR,
FAIRNESS AND GOOD FAITH TO THE COURT.
Rule 10.01 - A lawyer shall not do any falsehood,
nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall
he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any
artifice.
Badge: The Lawyer and the Court
Caption: ANTONIO LEJANO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
G.R. No. 176389, February 15, 2011
Syllabus:
Facts: The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the CA
and acquitted accused, namely: Hubert Webb, Antonio
Lejano, Michael Atchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel
Rodriguez, Peter Estrada, and Gerardo Biong on the ground
of lack of proof of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Thereafter, complaint Lauro Vizconde, asked the Court to
reconsider its decision, claiming that it "denied the
prosecution due process of law; seriously misappreciated the
facts; unreasonably regarded Alfaro as lacking credibility;
issued a tainted and erroneous decision; decided the case in
a manner that resulted in the miscarriage of justice; or
committed grave abuse in its treatment of the evidence and
prosecution witnesses."
Issue: Whether or not a judgment of acquittal may be
reconsidered
Ruling: No, as a rule a judgment of acquittal cannot be
reconsidered for it places the accused under double
jeopardy. On occasions, a motion for reconsideration after an
acquittal is possible, but the grounds are exceptional and
narrow as when the court that absolved the accused gravely
abused its discretion, resulting in loss of jurisdiction, or when a
mistrial has occurred. In any of such cases, the State may

22
• __
assail the decision by special civil action of certiorari under
Rule 65.
Althou complainant Vizconde invoked the exceptions, he has
been unable to bring pleas for reconsideration under such
exceptions. He did not specify that violations of due process
and acts constituting grave abuse of discretion that the Court
supposedly committed. Vizconde did not also alleged that
the Court held a sham review of the decision of the CA. What
the complainant actually questions is the Court's appreciation
of the evidence and assessment of the prosecution witnesses'
credibility. That the court committed grave error in finding
Alfaro as not a credible witness. The complaint wants the
court to review the evidence anew and render another
judgment based on such evaluation which is not
constitutionally allowed and therefore, the judgment of
acquittal can no longer be disturbed.
Fallo: WHEREFORE, the Court:
1. Strongly ADMONISHES Mr. Lauro Vizconde for publicly
stating that the Court had been bought when it acquitted the
accused and that Justice Antonio Carpio put pressure on its
members to vote for such acquittal when he, Mr. Vizconde,
was not prepared to substantiate such statement;
2. FINDS Mr. Dante La. Jimenez guilty of contempt of court for
badmouthing the members of the Court and imposes on him
the penalty of fine of P100,000.00;and
3. DIRECTS Atty. Ferdinand S. Topacio to show cause within
ten (10) days from receipt of this resolution why he should not
be held in contempt for publicly stating through the Philippine
Daily Inquirer, when he was not ready to substantiate the
same with evidence, that three members of the judiciary
were privy to "the alleged efforts of [Justice] Carpio to
convince fellow justices to vote for the acquittal of Hubert
Webb, principal accused in the massacre of Vizconde's wife
and daughters on June 30, 1991...that [Justice] Carpio was
the 'point man in marshalling efforts to secure the acquittal of
Webb as early as the time when the case was still under
review before the Court of Appeals."
The Court further Resolved to
(a) CONSIDER as SERVED the resolution dated November 23,
2010 addressed to Atty. Divinagracia S. San Juan of
Sobreviñas Hayudini Navarro & San Juan, 5th Flr. San Luis
Terraces, T.M. Kalaw St, Ermita, Manila, which resolution was
returned unserved with notations on the letter envelope 'RTS-
Moved Out;'
(b) NOTE WITHOUT ACTION the Letter dated February 2, 2011
of Eloysa G. Sicam, For the Firm Ongkiko Manhit Custodio &
Acorda Law OFFICES (ocmalaw), Main Office; 4th Flr. CGB
Condominium, 101 Aguirre St., Legaspi Village, Makati City
1229, P.O. Box 4039, Philippines, on behalf of their client,
Hubert Jeffrey Webb, in view of the [*] action that the Court
has taken on Mr. Jimenez and the joint compliance filed by
Atty. Topacio and Mr. Vizconde;
CAPTION: SPOUSES WILLIE AND AMELIA UMAGUING,
Complainants, v. ATTY. WALLEN R. DE VERA,
FACTS:
1. Gross misconduct of respondent Atty. Wallen R. De Vera
(Atty. De Vera) in his handling of the election protest case
involving the candidacy of Mariecris Umaguing (position of SK
Chairman)
2. Atty. De Vera allegedly instructed Abeth Lalong-Isip
(Lalong-Isip) and Hendricson Fielding (Fielding) to look for the
nearest kin or relatives of Lachica and Almera and ask them
to sign over the names.7 The signing over of Lachica’s and
Almera’s names were done by Christina Papin (Papin) and
Elsa Almera-Almacen, respectively. Atty. De Vera then had all
the documents notarized before one Atty. Donato Manguiat
(Atty. Manguiat).
3. It was observed that such was a mere flimsy excuse since
Atty. De Vera had ample amount of time to have the
affidavits personally signed by the affiants but still hastily filed
the election protest with full knowledge that the affidavits at
hand were falsified.
4. After an assiduous examination of the records, the Court
finds itself in complete agreement with the IBP Investigating
Commissioner, who was affirmed by the IBP Board of
Governors, in holding that Atty. De Vera sanctioned the
submission of a falsified affidavit, i.e.,Almera’s affidavit, before
the court in his desire to beat the November 8, 2008 deadline
for filing the election protest of Umaguing.
ISSUE:
W/N Atty. De Vera misled the Court
RULING:
1. YES, suspended for 6 months
- WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Wallen R. De Vera
(respondent) is found GUILTY of violating the
Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 10.01, Canon 10 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, he is
SUSPENDED for six (6) months from the practice of
law, effective upon receipt of this Decision, with a
stern warning that any repetition of the same or
similar acts will be punished more severely.
- Moreover, respondent is ORDERED to return to
complainants Spouses Willie and Amelia Umaguing
the amount of P60,000.00 which he admittedly
received from the latter as fees intrinsically linked to
his professional engagement within ninety (90) days
from the finality of this Decision.
CAPTION: A.C. No. 8620. January 12, 2011.* JESSIE R. DE LEON,
complainant, vs. ATTY. EDUARDO G. CASTELO, respondent.
23
• __
FACTS:
De Leon avers that the respondent committed dishonesty
and falsification as follows:... in causing it (to) appear that
persons... have participated in an act or proceeding... when
they did not in fact so participate; in fact, they could not
have so participated because they were... already dead as
of that time
He (Atty. Castelo) prepared the initial pleadings based on his
honest belief that Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were then
still living. Had he known that they were already deceased,
he would have most welcomed the information and would
have moved to substitute Leonardo and
He (Atty. Castelo) had no intention to commit either a
falsehood or a falsification, for he in fact submitted the death
certificates of Spouses Lim Hio and Dolores Chu in order to
apprise the trial court of that fact
ISSUE:
1. Did the respondent violate the letter and spirit of the
Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility in
making the averments in the aforequoted pleadings of the
defendants?
2. W/N the Court extends to attorneys not only the
presumption of regularity in the discharge of their duties, but
also the immunity from liability to others
RULING:
1. We find that the respondent, as attorney, did not commit
any falsehood or falsification in his pleadings...
- respondent did not misrepresent that Spouses Lim
Hio and Dolores Chu were still living.
- On the contrary, the respondent directly stated in
the answer to the complaint in intervention with
counterclaim and cross-claim, supra, and in the...
clarification and submission, supra, that the Spouses
Lim Hio and Dolores Chu were already deceased.
- A lawyer's reputation is, indeed, a very fragile
object. The Court, whose officer every lawyer is,
must shield such fragility from mindless assault by the
unscrupulous and the malicious. It can do so:
- firstly, by quickly cutting down any patently
frivolous complaint... against a lawyer; and,
- secondly, by demanding good faith from
whoever brings any accusation of
unethical conduct.
- A Bar that is insulated from intimidation and
harassment is encouraged to be
courageous and fearless, which can then
best contribute to the efficient delivery
and... proper administration of justice.
2. YES, the court does, as long as:
- Their being officers of the Court extends to attorneys
not only the presumption of regularity in the
discharge of their duties, but also the immunity from
liability to others for as long as the performance of
their obligations to their clients does not depart from
their character as servants of the Law and as officers
of the Court.
- In particular, the statements they make in behalf of
their clients that are relevant, pertinent, or material
to the subject of inquiry are absolutely privileged
regardless of their defamatory tenor. Such cloak of
privilege is necessary and essential in ensuring the
unhindered service to their clients causes and in
protecting the clientsÊ confidences. With the cloak
of privilege, they can freely and courageously speak
for their clients, verbally or in writing, in the course of
judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, without
running the risk of incurring criminal prosecution or
actions for damages.
Rule 10.02 - A lawyer shall not knowingly misquote
or misrepresent the contents of a paper, the
language or the argument of opposing counsel, or
the text of a decision or authority, or knowingly cite
as law a provision already rendered inoperative by
repeal or amendment, or assert as a fact that which
has not been proved.
Rule 10.03 - A lawyer shall observe the rules of
procedure and shall not misuse them to defeat the
ends of justice.
CAPTION: In the matter of MATTHEW COBB (Canon 10-13B)
Docket SJC 09333, Supreme Judicial Court (Mass), 8
December 2005
FACTS:
* Matthew Cobb has been a member of the bar of the
Commonwealth since 1990. However, a disbarment case has
been filed against him due to three cases that were
consolidated which are as follows: 1) Upon representing Dr.
Jaraki in a termination case, he filed a motion containing
improbable and false allegations that he failed to
corroborate, thereby exposing his client to sanctions and also
made groundless representations to the judge. This is in
regards to his accusation that Dr. Rozenbaum, his former
attorney, and a certain Atty Diane Taylor was involved in a
criminal enterprise to prevent Dr. Rozembaum from testifying
in the said case.
He made this accusation without an attempt to corroborate
and he has no evidence or grounds to support such
accusation. Thus, the court denied his motions and
sanctioned him and his client, Dr. Jaraki. 2) The respondent
also represented the Does regarding sexual harassment case
wherein he filed a complaint against the attorneys for the
adversaries of his clients alleging claims that he knew were
groundless. This is when the responded filed a suit against the
24
• __

counsel of the defendants in order to involve them in the

case thereby creating a conflict of interest. He also made
accusations to the judge who had sanctioned him had been
improperly influenced and was biased.

In this case, the court denied his petition and sanctioned him
solely but he then misrepresented his clients that they had
been sanctioned, converted the settlement proceeds of his
clients to pay for the sanctions pressed against him. 3) On the
third case, he settled a case without his client’s authority and
he continued to represent her when their interests where in
conflict. This is in regards to his client who was involved in a
discrimination case against a hospital. Wherein, he agreed to
settle for only $15000 despite the clear instruction of his client
that she is not willing to settle for less than $30000. Upon the
enforcement of the settlement, he then told the courts that
he had her authority even if he did not.

ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the responded has been correctly disbarred
in relation to the violations of Canon 10-13b.

RULING:
1. Yes. The court affirmed the judgment of the disbarment
due to the board’s adopted conclusions of the law (in
relation to Canon 10-13b)
- Rule 10.01 – When the board determined that the
respondent’s conduct in misrepresenting to his
clients that sanctions had been assessed them
instead of telling them he had been sanctioned
personally and also his misrepresentation to the
court that his client gave him consent even if it is not
true.
- Rule 10.02 – This also applies when the said
respondent did not disclose to his clients the
decision of the court to sanction him only but
instead he misquoted it by telling them that they
were sanctioned.
- Rule 10.03 – This applies when the respondent
purposely filed a suit against Nutter in order to
create a conflict of interest between the latter and
his clients. In order for them to not represent their
said clients due to the said conflict of interest that
will arise from the suit.
- Rule 11.04 – This applies when the respondent
accused the judge for being biased without grounds
or evidence. Wherein, an attorney who makes
critical statements regarding judges and legal
officers with reckless disregard to the truth exhibits a
lack of judgment that conflicts with his or her position
as an officer of the legal system.
- Rule 12.01 – This applies on the first case when the
board held that he did not prepared adequately
because his allegations were not supported by
evidence but only by the mere testimony of his client
(Dr. Jaraki).
CANON 11 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE
AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE
COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND
SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY
OTHERS.
Rule 11.01 - A lawyer shall appear in court properly
attired.
Rule 11.02 - A lawyer shall punctually appear at
court hearings.
Rule 11.03 - A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous,
offensive or menacing language or behavior
before the Courts.
CAPTION: No. L-27664. February 18, 1970. IN THE MATTER OF
PROCEEDINGS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST
ATTY.VICENTE RAUL ALMACEN in L-27654, ANTONIO H. CALERO
VS. VIRGINIA Y. YAPTINCHAYO
BADGE: CANDOR; ABRASIVE LANGUAGE
FALLO: “That the misconduct committed by Atty. Almacen is
of considerable gravity cannot be overemphasized.
However, heeding the stern injunction that disbarment should
never be decreed where a lesser sanction would accomplish
the end desired, and believing that it may not perhaps be
futile to hope that in the sober light of some future day, Atty.
Almacen will realize that abrasive language never fails to do
disservice to an advocate and that in every effervescence of

25
• __
candor there is ample room for the added glow of respect, it
is our view that suspension will suffice under the
circumstances. His demonstrated persistence in his
misconduct by neither manifesting repentance nor offering
apology therefor leave us no way of determining how long
that suspension should last and, accordingly, we are impelled
to decree that the same should be indefinite. This, we are
empowered to do not alone because jurisprudence grants us
discretion on the matter 33 but also because, even without
the comforting support of precedent, it is obvious that if we
have authority to completely exclude a person from the
practice of law, there is no reason why indefinite suspension,
which is lesser in degree and effect, can be regarded as
falling outside of the compass of that authority. The merit of
this choice is best shown by the fact that it will then be left to
Atty. Almacen to determine for himself how long or how short
that suspension shall last. For, at any time after the suspension
becomes effective he may prove to this Court that he is once
again fit to resume the practice of law. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS
THE SENSE of the Court that Atty. Vicente Raul Almacen be, as
he is hereby, suspended from the practice of law until further
orders, the suspension to take effect immediately.”
FACTS:
1. He reiterated and disclosed to the press the contents of the
aforementioned petition. Thus, on September 26, 1967, the
Manila Times published statements attributed to him, as
follows:
- „There is no use continuing his law practice,
Almacen said in this petition, Âwhere our Supreme
Court is composed of men who are calloused to oiir
pleas for justice, who ignore without reason their
own applicable decisions and commit culpable
violations of the Constitution with impunity.
2. Atty. Almacen statement that
- „x x x our own Supreme Court is composed of men
who are calloused to our pleas of [sic] justice, who
ignore their own applicable decisions and commit
culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity,
‰ an officer of the Court with the end in view of
- preserving the purity of the ltgal profession and the
- was quoted by columnist Vicente Albano Pacis in
the issue of the Manila Chronicle of September 28,
1967.
ISSUE:
1a. W/N post-litigation utterances are covered by Rule
11.03
1b What is the limitation to criticisms towards the Court
2. What is the nature of a lawyer’s disciplinary proceeding?
3. W/N indefinite suspension can be ordered
RULING:
1a. YES, post-litigation utterances and publications of lawyer
critical of courts may be the basis of disciplinary action.
- Post-litigation utterances or publications, made by
lawyers, critical of the courts and their judicial
actuations, whether amounting to a crime or not,
which transcend the permissible bounds of fair
comment and legitimate criticism and thereby tend
to bring them into disrepute or to subvert public
confidence in their integrity and in the orderly
administration of justice, constitute grave
professional misconduct which may be visited with
disbarment or other lesser appropriate disciplinary
sanctions by the Supreme Court in the exercise of
the prerogatives inherent in it as the duly constituted
guardian of the morals and ethics of the legal
fraternity.
1b.
- But it is the cardinal condition of all such criticism
that it shall be bona fide, and shall not spill over the
walls of decency and propriety. A wide chasm exists
between fair criticism, on the one hand, and abuse
and slander of courts and the judges thereof, on the
other. Intemperate and unfair criticism is a gross
violation of the duty of respect to courts. It is such a
misconduct that subjects a lawyer to disciplinary
action.
2. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis.
- Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not
involve a trial of an action or a suit, but are rather
investigations by the Court into the conduct of one
of its officers. Not being intended to inflict
punishment, it is in no sense a criminal prosecution.
Accordingly, there is neither a plaintiff nor a
prosecutor therein. It may be initiated by the Court
motu proprio. Public interest is its primary objective,
and the real question for determination is whether or
not the attorney is still a fit person to be allowed the
privileges as such. Hence, in the exercise of its
disciplinary powers, the Court merely calls upon a
member of the Bar to account for his actuations as
proper and honest administration of justice by
purging the profession of members who by their
misconduct have proved themselves no longer
worthy to be entrusted with the duties and
responsibilities pertaining to the office of an
attorney. In such posture, there can thus be no
occasion to speak of a complainant or a
prosecutor.
3. YES, Indefinite suspension may be ordered.
- Where the demonstrated persistence of the
misconduct of the lawyer leaves the court unable to
assess or determine how long that suspension should
last and that disbarment should not be decreed
where a lesser sanction would accomplish the end
desired, the erring lawyer was merely suspended
indefinitely. In such a case at any time after the
suspension becomes effective, the lawyer may
26
• __
prove to the Court thatÊhe is once again fit to
resume the practice of law.
CAPTION: Judge LACUROM VS Spouse Attys. JACOBAS, A.C.
No. 5921, March 10, 2006
FACTS:
* The Jacoba-Velasco-Jacoba Law Firm is counsel for plaintiff
Alejandro R. Veneracion in a civil case for unlawful detainer
against defendant Federico Barrientos. The MTC of
Cabanatuan City rendered judgment in favor of Veneracion
but Barrientos appealed to the RTC. The case was raffled to
Branch 30 where Judge Lacurom was sitting as pairing judge
who issued a Resolution dated June 29, 2001 reversing the
earlier judgments rendered in favor of Veneracion.
Veneracion’s counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration that
uses sardonic, strident and hard-striking adjectives such as
abhorrent nullity, legal monstrosity, horrendous mistake,
horrible error, boner, and an insult to the judiciary and an
anachronism in the judicial process- in lieu of the reversing of
the earlier of the MTC.
On 6 August 2001, Judge Lacurom ordered Velasco-Jacoba
to appear before his sala and explain why she should not be
held in contempt of court for the very disrespectful, insulting
and humiliating contents of the 30 July 2001 motion.
In her Explanation, Comments and Answer, Velasco-Jacoba
claimed that His Honor knows beforehand who actually
prepared the subject Motion; records will show that the
undersigned counsel did not actually or actively participate in
this case. Velasco-Jacoba disavowed any conscious or
deliberate intent to degrade the honor and integrity of the
Honorable Court or to detract in any form from the respect
that is rightfully due all courts of justice.
On 13 September 2001, Judge Lacurom found Velasco-
Jacoba guilty of contempt and penalized her with
imprisonment for five days and a fine of P1,000.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the respondents use of sardonic, strident and
hard-striking adjectives is in violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility?
RULING:
1. Yes, respondents clearly violated the Code of Professional
Responsibility particularly Rule 11.03 and Rule 11.04, Canon 11.
Rule 11.03.A lawyer shall abstain from scandalous, offensive or
menacing language or behavior before the Courts.
Rule 11.04.A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge motives not
supported by the record or have no materiality to the case.
The court further held that “Well-recognized is the right of a
lawyer, both as an officer of the court and as a citizen, to
criticize in properly respectful terms and through legitimate
channels the acts of courts and judges. However, even the
most hardened judge would be scarred by the scurrilous
attack made by the 30 July 2001 motion on Judge Lacurom’s
Resolution. On its face, the Resolution presented the facts
correctly and decided the case according to supporting law
and jurisprudence. Though a lawyer’s language may be
forceful and emphatic, it should always be dignified and
respectful, befitting the dignity of the legal profession. The use
of unnecessary language is proscribed/banned or prohibited
if we are to promote high esteem in the courts and trust in
judicial administration. In maintaining the respect due to the
courts, a lawyer is not merely enjoined to use dignified
language but also to pursue the client’s cause through fair
and honest means.”
CAPTION: RE : SUSPENSION OF ATTY. ROGELIO Z. BAGABUYO
ADM. CASE No. 7006 October 9, 2007 Per Associate Justice
Azcuna, En Banc
BADGE: CANON 11 AND CANON 13.02
FALLO: “The Supreme Court found Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo
guilty of violating Rule 11.05, Canon 11 and Rule 13.02, Canon
13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and of violating
the Lawyers Oath, for which he is suspended from the
practice of law for one (1) year.
”
FACTS:
Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo, then Senior State Prosecutor,
caused a publication of an article regarding Judge Jose
Manuel Tan’s order in an ongoing criminal case for granting
bail to an accused charged with murder, in the August 18,
2003 issue of Mindanao Gold Star Daily. In the article, he
stated that he would file criminal and administrative charges
of certiorari against the judge and the he was not afraid of
being cited in contempt by Judge Tan.
Atty. Bagabuyo was declared by the trial court in contempt
of court after refusing to answer whether he made the
statements in the article. Despite the citation of indirect
contempt, respondent presented himself to the media for
interviews in Radio Station DXKS, and again attacked the
integrity of Judge Tan and the trial courts disposition in the
proceedings of the criminal case.
He was again requested to explain and to show cause within
five days from receipt thereof why he should not be held in
contempt for his media interviews that degraded the court
and the presiding judge, and why he should not be
suspended from the practice of law for violating the Code of
Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 11.05 of Canon 11
and Rule 13.02 of Canon 13.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo disrespected the
Court?
Rule 13.02 - A lawyer
2. W/N Atty Bagabuyo violated
shall not make public statements in the media
regarding a pending case tending to arouse
27
• __
public opinion for or against a party.
RULING:
1. The Supreme Court found Atty. Rogelio Z. Bagabuyo guilty
of violating Rule 11.05, Canon 11 and Rule 13.02, Canon 13 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, and of violating the
Lawyers Oath, for which he is suspended from the practice of
law for one (1) year.
- The Court mentioned that as a senior state
prosecutor and officer of the court, respondent
should have set the example of observing and
maintaining the respect due to the courts and to
judicial officers. The Court further stated that it is not
against lawyers raising grievances against erring
judges but the rules clearly provide for the proper
venue and procedure for doing so, precisely
because respect for the institution must always be
maintained.
- Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Disbarment; Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility mandates a
lawyer to observe and maintain the respect due to
the courts and to judicial officers and [he] should
insist on similar conduct by others.·Lawyers are
licensed officers of the courts who are empowered
to appear, prosecute and defend; and upon whom
peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are
devolved by law as a consequence. Membership in
the bar imposes upon them certain obligations.
Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility
mandates a lawyer to „observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and
[he] should insist on similar conduct by others.‰ Rule
11.05 of Canon 11 states that a lawyer „shall submit
grievances against a judge to the proper authorities
only.
2. YES
- A lawyerÊs statements against the judge, made to
the mass media while a criminal case is still pending
in court, violates Rule 13.02 of Canon 13, which
states that „a lawyer shall not make public
statements in the media regarding a pending case
tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
party.‰·
- Respondent violated Rule 11.05 of Canon 11 when
he admittedly caused the holding of a press
conference where he made statements against the
Order dated November 12, 2002 allowing the
accused in Crim. Case No. 5144 to be released on
bail. Respondent also violated Canon 11 when he
indirectly stated that Judge Tan was displaying
judicial arrogance in the article entitled, Senior
prosecutor lambasts Surigao judge for allowing
murder suspect to bail out, which appeared in the
August 18, 2003 issue of the Mindanao Gold Star
Daily.
- RespondentÊs statements in the article, which were
made while Crim. Case No. 5144 was still pending in
court, also violated Rule 13.02 of Canon 13, which
states that „a lawyer shall not make public
statements in the media regarding a pending case
tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
party.‰ In regard to the radio interview given to
Tony Consing, respondent violated Rule 11.05 of
CAPTION: Teresita D. Santeco vs. Atty. Luna B. Avance A.C.
No. 5834 (formerly CBD-01-861). February 22, 2011
FACTS:
In an En Banc Decision dated December 11, 2003, the Court
found respondent guilty of gross misconduct for, among
others, abandoning her client’s cause in bad faith and
persistent refusal to comply with lawful orders directed at her
without any explanation for doing so. She was ordered
suspended from the practice of law for a period of five years.
Subsequently, while respondent’s five-year suspension from
the practice of law was still in effect, Judge Consuelo Amog-
Bocar, Presiding Judge of the RTC of Iba, Zambales, Branch
71, sent a letter-report dated November 12, 2007 to the Court
Administrator informing the latter that respondent had
appeared and actively participated in three cases wherein
she misrepresented herself as “Atty. Liezl Tanglao”. When
opposing counsels confronted her and showed to the court a
certification regarding her suspension, respondent admitted
and conceded that she is Atty. Luna B. Avance, but qualified
that she was only suspended for three years and that her
suspension has already been lifted.
Acting on Judge Amog-Bocar’s letter-report, the Court, in a
Resolution dated April 9, 2008, required respondent to
comment within ten days from notice. Respondent, however,
failed to file the required comment. On June 10, 2009, the
Court reiterated the directive to comment. Still, respondent
failed to comply despite notice. Accordingly, this Court issued
a Resolution on September 29, 2009 finding respondent guilty
of indirect contempt. Respondent was ordered to pay a fine
in the amount of Php 30,000.00 which respondent failed to
pay.
ISSUE:
1. W/N not obeying the Court’s orders is a violation of the CPR
2. W/N the respondent must be disbarred
RULING:
1. YES, it is
- The highest form of respect for judicial authority is
shown by a lawyerÊs obedience to court orders and
processes.·As an officer of the court, it is a lawyerÊs
duty to uphold the dignity and authority of the court.
The highest form of respect for judicial authority is
shown by a lawyerÊs obedience to court orders and
processes. Here, respondentÊs conduct evidently fell
short of what is expected of her as an officer of the
court as she obviously possesses a habit of defying
this CourtÊs orders. She willfully disobeyed this Court
when she continued her law practice despite the
five-year suspension order against her and even
misrepresented herself to be another person in order
28
• __
to evade said penalty. Thereafter, when she was
twice ordered to comment on her continued law
practice while still suspended, nothing was heard
from her despite receipt of two Resolutions from this
Court. Neither did she pay the P30,000.00 fine
imposed in the September 29, 2009 Resolution.
- Failure to comply with Court directives constitutes
gross misconduct, insubordination or disrespect
which merits a lawyerÊs suspension or even
disbarment.·We have held that failure to comply
with Court directives constitutes gross misconduct,
insubordination or disrespect which merits a lawyerÊs
suspension or even disbarment. Sebastian v. Bajar,
532 SCRA 435 (2007), teaches RespondentÊs cavalier
attitude in repeatedly ignoring the orders of the
Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the
judicial institution. RespondentÊs conduct indicates
a high degree of irresponsibility. A CourtÊs Resolution
is „not to be construed as a mere request, nor should
it be complied with partially, inadequately, or
selectively. RespondentÊs obstinate refusal to
comply with the CourtÊs orders not „only betrays a
recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also underscores
her disrespect of the CourtÊs lawful orders which is
only too deserving of reproof.‰ Under Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court a member of the bar
may be disbarred or suspended from office as an
attorney for gross misconduct and/or for a willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court.
2. Yes, she must
- Respondent is unfit to discharge the duties of an
officer of the court and deserves the ultimate
penalty of disbarment.
- In repeatedly disobeying this CourtÊs orders,
respondent proved herself unworthy of membership
in the Philippine Bar. Worse, she remains indifferent to
the need to reform herself. Clearly, she is unfit to
discharge the duties of an officer of the court and
deserves the ultimate penalty of disbarment.
CAPTION: A.C. No. 8920. September 28, 2011.* JUDGE RENE B.
BACULI, complainant, vs. ATTY. MELCHOR A. BATTUNG,
respondent.
FACTS:
* Judge Baculi, Presiding Judge of Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Branch 2, Tuguegarao City, filed a complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Battung. He claimed that on July 24,
2008, during the hearing on the motion for reconsideration of
Civil Case No. 2502, the respondent was shouting while
arguing his motion. Judge Baculi advised him to tone down
his voice but instead, the respondent shouted at the top of his
voice. When warned that he would be cited for direct
contempt, the respondent shouted, “Then cite me!”Judge
Baculi cited him for direct contempt and imposed a fine of
P100.00. The respondent then left.
While other cases were being heard, the respondent re-
entered the courtroom and shouted, “Judge, I will file gross
ignorance against you! I am not afraid of you!” Judge Baculi
ocited him for direct contempt of court for the second time.
After his hearings, the respondent again shouted in a
threatening tone, “Judge, I will file gross ignorance against
you! I am not afraid of you!” He kept on shouting, “I am not
afraid of you!” and challenged the judge to a fight. Staff and
lawyers escorted him out of the building.
Judge Baculi later found out that after the respondent left the
courtroom, Atty. Battung continued shouting and punched a
table at the Office of the Clerk of Court.
ISSUE:
1. Did the respondent violated Rule 11.03
2. Can a lawyer disrespect a judge
RULING:
1.YES
- Litigants and counsels, particularly the latter
because of their position and avowed duty to the
courts, cannot be allowed to publicly ridicule,
demean and disrespect a judge, and the court that
he represents.·We agree with the IBPÊs finding that
the respondent violated Rule 11.03, Canon 11 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Battung
disrespected Judge Baculi by shouting at him inside
the courtroom during court proceedings in the
presence of litigants and their counsels, and court
personnel. The respondent even came back to
harass Judge Baculi. This behavior, in front of many
witnesses, cannot be allowed. We note that the
respondent continued to threaten Judge Baculi and
acted in a manner that clearly showed disrespect
for his position even after the latter had cited him for
contempt.
2. NO
- A lawyer who insults a judge inside a courtroom
completely disregards the latterÊs role, stature and
position in our justice system; Incompetence of a
judge is a matter that, even if true, must be handled
with sensitivity in the manner provided under the
Rules of Court·an objecting or complaining lawyer
cannot act in a manner that puts the courts in a
bad light and bring the justice system into disrepute.·
- We ruled in Roxas v. De Zuzuarregui, Jr., 527 SCRA
446 (2007), that it is the duty of a lawyer, as an
officer of the court, to uphold the dignity and
authority of the courts.
- Respect for the courts guarantees the stability of the
judicial institution; without this guarantee, the
institution would be resting on very shaky
foundations. A lawyer who insults a judge inside a
29
• __
courtroom completely disregards the latterÊs role,
stature and position in our justice system.
- When the respondent publicly berated and brazenly
threatened Judge Baculi that he would file a case
for gross ignorance of the law against the latter, the
respondent effectively acted in a manner tending
to erode the public confidence in Judge BaculiÊs
competence and in his ability to decide cases.
Incompetence is a matter that, even if true, must be
handled with sensitivity in the manner provided
under the Rules of Court; an objecting or
complaining lawyer cannot act in a manner that
puts the courts in a bad light and bring the justice
system into disrepute.
Rule 11.04 - A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge
motives not supported by the record or have no
materiality to the case.
CAPTION: MADRID v. DEALCA (Canon 10-13H)
A.C. 7474, 9 September 2014
FACTS:
* Atty. Juan S. Dealca entered his appearance in Criminal
Case No. 2006-6795, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Philip
William Arsenault" then pending in RTC Branch 51 and
presided by Judge Jose L. Madrid. Atty. Dealca sought to
replace Atty. Vicente Judar who had filed a motion to
withdraw as counsel for the accused.
But aside from entering his appearance as counsel
for the accused, Atty. Dealca also moved that Criminal Case
No. 2006-6795 be re-raffled to another Branch of the RTC and
filed a motion to inhibit stating that “ considering the adverse
incidents between the incumbent Presiding Judge and the
undersigned,” where “he does not appear before the
incumbent Presiding Judge, and the latter does not also hear
cases handled by the undersigned.”
Consequently, Judge Madrid filed a letter complaint
in the Office of the Bar Confidant citing Atty. Dealca’s
unethical practice of entering his appearance and then
moving for the inhibition of the presiding judge on the pretext
of previous adverse incidents between them.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Atty. Dealca violated Canon 11 and 11.4 of
Code of Professional Responsibility
RULING:
1. YES. Atty. Dealca violated Canon 11 and 11.4 of Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Canon 11 – A lawyer shall observe and maintain the
respect due to the courts and to the judicial officers and
should insist on similar conduct by others.
Rule 11.4 – A lawyer shall not attribute to a Judge
motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to
the case.
In light of the foregoing canons, all lawyers are
bound to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts, and
to promote confidence in the fair administration of justice. It is
the respect for the courts that guarantees the stability of the
judicial institution; elsewise, the institution would be resting on
a very shaky foundation.
Atty. Dealca should be sanctioned for filing the
motion to inhibit considering that the motion, being purely
based on his personal whims, was bereft of factual and legal
bases.
Atty. Dealca’s averment that Judge Madrid did not
hear cases being handled by him directly insinuated that
judges could choose the cases they heard, and could refuse
to hear the cases in which hostility existed between the
judges and the litigants or their counsel. Such averment, if true
at all, should have been assiduously substantiated by him
because it put in bad light not only Judge Madrid but all
judges in general. Yet, he did not even include any particulars
that could have validated the averment. Nor did he attach
any document to support it.
Thus, it was incumbent upon Atty. Dealca to
establish by clear and convincing evidence the ground of
bias and prejudice in order to disqualify Judge Madrid from
participating in a particular trial in which Atty. Dealca was
participating as counsel. As such, Atty. Dealca clearly
contravened his duties as a lawyer as expressly stated in
Canon 11 and Rule 11.04.
He is suspended from practice of law for one (1)
year.
CAPTION: Joseph J. Notopoulos v. Statewide Grievance
Committee, SC (Connecticut) 17341, 2006
FACTS:
* The primary function of the Statewide Grievance
Committee is the review and adjudication of complaints. :
- The committee had reprimanded the plaintiff after
he wrote a letter accusing a Probate Court judge of,
inter alia, extorting money.
- Rule 8.2 (a) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct provides in relevant part: ‘‘A
lawyer shall not make a statement that the
lawyer knows to be false or with reckless
disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning
the qualifications or integrity of a
judge . . . .’’ 3
- Rule 8.4 of the Rules of Professional
Conduct provides in relevant part: ‘‘It is
professional misconduct for a lawyer to...
‘‘(4) [e]ngage in conduct that is prejudicial
30
• __
to the administration of justice . . . .’
* The plaintiff also claimed that the trial court improperly
concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence
that he violated rule 8.4(4) of the Rules of Professional
Conduct, but the Appellate Court declined to review the
claim because it was inadequately briefed. Notopoulos v.
Statewide Grievance Committee, supra, 85 Conn.App. at
433, 857 A.2d 424.
ISSUE:
1. Did the Appellate Court properly aWrm the judgment of
the trial court dismissing the plaintiff's appeal from his
reprimand by the defendant, the statewide grievance
committee?”
- did the plaintiff made a statement with reckless
disregard against the integrity of the judge?
RULING:
1. YES, the lawyer is at fault here
- Finally, we have concluded that the plaintiff's
statements were not speech protected by the *rst
amendment. Thus, we need not determine whether
an attorney's disparaging comments about a judge
that do not constitute a violation of rule 8.2(a)
constitutionally may be sanctioned under rule 8.4(4).
- Accordingly, we conclude that the committee's
finding that the plaintiff also violated rule 8.4(4) was
not clearly erroneous. The judgment of the
Appellate Court is affirmed.
- When an attorney, subject to sanctions for violating
rule 8.2(a), has “presented no evidence establishing
a factual basis for [his or] her claims”; id., at 46, 835
A.2d 998; the fact *under reasonably may conclude
that the attorney's claims against the court “were
either knowingly false or made with reckless
disregard as to [their] truth or falsity.” (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 51, 835 A.2d 998.
CAPTION:
FACTS:
* Mr. Vizconde does not deny the statements that the Court
attributes to him: When asked to give his comment regarding
the decision, Mr. Lauro Vizconde claimed that the Supreme
Court was certainly bought that was why it declared the
accused innocent. A journalist asked him, "Sino po 'yung mga
sinasabi niyong ahm, ginapang po?" Mr. Vizconde answered,
"Eh walang iba kung 'di si Justice Carpio, eh talaga namang
sinabi sa akin ng isang Justice diyan x x x Sigurado 'ko kung
hindi nagkabayaran, hindi magkakaganito ‘yung kaso ko."
Even before the decision came out, Mr. Vizconde has
mentioned that Justice Carpio was "talagang binabraso itong
kasamahan sa justice para paboran siya in favor of the
Webb."
* Mr. Vizconde's above statements to the media are
extremely serious. He accuses the Court of being crooked
and corrupt. Yet, when called to substantiate his accusations,
all he can say is that it would not be proper "at this time" to
reveal to the Court the identities of his unimpeachable
informants. But this is like saying, "You are crooks but let me
not prove it to you considering that it is not yet time for me to
tell the truth." :
- Mr. Ferdinand Topacio of the People's Movement for Justice
said in a press interview that three members of the judiciary
"were 'privy to the alleged effort's of Carpio to convince
fellow justices to vote for the acquittal of Hubert Webb,
principal accused in the massacre of Vizconde's wife and
daughters on June 30, 1991...that Carpio was the 'point man
in marshalling efforts to secure the acquittal of Webb as early
as the time when the case was still under review before the
Court of Appeals."
- Atty. Topacio said a mouthful. First, he admitted that he was
conscious of his duty to reveal to the Supreme Court Justice
Carpio's supposed misdeed so the Court "may take
appropriate action." Yet, he did not abide by that duty. He
did not advise Mr. Vizconde to communicate the matter to
the Supreme Court directly so it could act on the same.
- Atty. Topacio advised Mr. Vizconde to release his damaging
accusation, which they were not then prepared to
substantiate, to one media entity. As an officer of the Court,
Atty. Topacio had a bounden duty to uphold its dignity and
authority, not promote distrust in its administration of
justice."[1] He ought not to unnecessarily destroy the people's
high esteem and regard for the courts, so essential to the
proper administration of justice.
ISSUE:
1. w/n Mr Vizconde and Atty Topacio erred the court with
their accusations
RULING:
1. YES they did
- 1. Strongly ADMONISHES Mr. Lauro Vizconde for
publicly stating that the Court had been bought
when it acquitted the accused and that Justice
Antonio Carpio put pressure on its members to vote
for such acquittal when he, Mr. Vizconde, was not
prepared to substantiate such statement;
- 2. FINDS Mr. Dante La. Jimenez guilty of contempt of
court for badmouthing the members of the Court
and imposes on him the penalty of fine of
P100,000.00;and
- 3. DIRECTS Atty. Ferdinand S. Topacio to show cause
within ten (10) days from receipt of this resolution
why he should not be held in contempt for publicly
stating through the Philippine Daily Inquirer, when he
31
• __
was not ready to substantiate the same with
evidence, that three members of the judiciary were
privy to "the alleged efforts of [Justice] Carpio to
convince fellow justices to vote for the acquittal of
Hubert Webb, principal accused in the massacre of
Vizconde's wife and daughters on June 30,
1991...that [Justice] Carpio was the 'point man in
marshalling efforts to secure the acquittal of Webb
as early as the time when the case was still under
review before the Court of Appeals."[5]
Rule 11.05 - A lawyer shall submit grievances
against a Judge to the proper authorities only.
---------------------------------------------------------
CANON 12 - A LAWYER SHALL EXERT
EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY
TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 12.01 - A lawyer shall not appear for trial unless
he has adequately prepared himself on the law
and the facts of his case, the evidence he will
adduce and the order of its proferrence. He should
also be ready with the original documents for
comparison with the copies.
Rule 12.02 - A lawyer shall not file multiple actions
arising from the same cause.
CAPTION: Collantes v. CA, G.R. No. 169604, 6 March 2007
WHEREFORE, the present Petition for Review on
Certiorari is DENIED. No costs.
FACTS:
* Nelson Collantes was appointed by then President Fidel V.
Ramos as Undersecretary for Peace and Order of the
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG).
With the change of administration, Collantes relinquished his
post as he allegedly received word from persons close to then
President Ejercito Estrada to give up his position so that the
President could unreservedly appoint his key officials.
Thereafter, on 1 July 1998, President Estrada appointed
Collantes as Undersecretary for Civilian Relations of the
Department of National Defense (DND). Subsequently,
Collantes was ordered to renounce his post in favor of
another presidential appointee, General Orlando Soriano. He
resigned from office believing that he will soon be given a
new assignment.
Unfortunately, Collantes was not given any other post in the
government, as in fact, he received a letter from President
Estrada terminating his services effective 8 February 1999.
Consequently, on 24 March 1999, Collantes requested the
assistance of the Career Executive Service Board relative to
the termination of his services as Undersecretary for Civilian
Relations of the DND invoking his right to security of tenure as
a CESO.
On 18 July 2003, herein petitioner Collantes then filed a
Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals praying for the
reversal of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolutions No.
021482 and No. 030542. Before the Court of Appeals can
decide this case, however, petitioner was appointed as
General Manager of the Philippine Retirement Authority on 5
August 2004. The Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for
Certiorari in the assailed 10 March 2005 decision.
Two Conflicting Final and Executory Decisions
- The 30 August 2001 Decision of the Court of Appeals,
however, has also attained finality. Hence, we go
back to the main issue in this petition: which of the
two final and executory decisions should be given
effect, the 30 August 2001 Court of Appeals Decision
dismissing the petitionerÊs Petition for Quo Warranto,
or the 13 August 2001 CSC Resolution declaring
petitioner Collantes to be illegally removed as
Undersecretary of the DND?
ISSUE:
1. W/N this is an instance of forum shopping and a violation of
Rule 12.02
RULING:
1. Yes, due to Two Conflicting Final and Executory Decisions
- There are thus three solutions which we can adopt in
resolving the case at bar:
- the first is for the parties to assert their
claims anew,
- the second is to determine which judgment
came first, and
- the third is to determine which of the
judgments had been rendered by a court
of last resort.
- Our rules on forum shopping are meant to prevent
such eventualities as conflicting final decisions as in
the case at bar. We have ruled that what is
important in determining whether forum shopping
exists or not is the vexation caused the courts and
parties-litigants by a party who asks different courts
and/or administrative agencies to rule on the same
or related causes and/or grant the same or
substantially the same reliefs, in the process creating
the possibility of conflicting decisions being rendered
by the different fora upon the same issues.
- More particularly, the elements of forum shopping
are: (a) identity of parties or at least such parties as
represent the same interests in both actions; (b)
32
• __

Rule 12.08 - A lawyer shall avoid testifying in behalf

identity of the rights asserted and the reliefs prayed
for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and of his client, except:
(c) the identity of the two preceding particulars,
such that any judgment rendered in the other action (a) on formal matters, such as the mailing,
will, regardless of which party is successful, amount
authentication or custody of an instrument, and the
to res judicata in the action under consideration.
like; or
- Three Ways to Commit Forum Shopping. ·Forum
shopping can be committed in three ways: (b) on substantial matters, in cases where his
- (1) filing multiple cases based on the same
testimony is essential to the ends of justice, in which
cause of action and with the same prayer,
the previous case not having been event he must, during his testimony, entrust the trial
resolved yet (where the ground for of the case to another counsel.
dismissal is litis pendentia);
- (2) filing multiple cases based on the same
cause of action and the same prayer, the
previous case having been finally resolved
(where the ground for dismissal is res
judicata); and
- (3) filing multiple cases based on the same
cause of action but with different prayers
(splitting of causes of action, where the
ground for dismissal is also either litis
pendentia or res judicata). If the forum
shopping is not considered willful and
deliberate, the subsequent cases shall be
dismissed without prejudice on one of the
two grounds mentioned above. However, if
the forum shopping is willful and deliberate,
both (or all, if there are more than two)
actions shall be dismissed with prejudice.

Rule 12.03 - A lawyer shall not, after obtaining

extensions of time to file pleadings, memoranda or
briefs, let the period lapse without submitting the
same or offering an explanation for his failure to do
CANON 13 - A LAWYER SHALL RELY UPON
so. THE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND REFRAIN
FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO
Rule 12.04 - A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case,
INFLUENCE, OR GIVES THE APPEARANCE
impede the execution of a judgment or misuse
OF INFLUENCING THE COURT.
Court processes.

Rule 13.01 - A lawyer shall not extend extraordinary

Rule 12.05 - A lawyer shall refrain from talking to his
attention or hospitality to, nor seek opportunity for
witness during a break or recess in the trial, while
cultivating familiarity with Judges.
the witness is still under examination.

Rule 13.02 - A lawyer shall not make public

Rule 12.06 - A lawyer shall not knowingly assist a
statements in the media regarding a pending case
witness to misrepresent himself or to impersonate
tending to arouse public opinion for or against a
another.
party.

Rule 12.07 - A lawyer shall not abuse, browbeat or

Rule 13.03 - A lawyer shall not brook or invite
harass a witness nor needlessly inconvenience him.
interference by another branch or agency of the

33
• __

government in the normal course of judicial

proceedings.
CAPTION: Rodriguze and Tulali v. Hon. Biancaflor, G.R. No.
190171, March 14, 2011
FACTS:
* On July 30, 2009, he issued an order summoning Rodriguez
to appear before him for the purpose of holding an inquiry on
matters pertaining to his possible involvement in Tulali's filing of
the ex-parte manifestation and the administrative complaint
against Awayan, among others.
On August 7, 2009, Rodriguez filed his Motion for Clarification
as to the purpose of Judge Blancaflor's continued inquiries
considering that the decision in the arson case had already
been promulgated.
- Accordingly, an order of direct contempt is not
immediately executory or enforceable. The
contemnor must be afforded a reasonable remedy
to extricate or purge himself of the contempt. Where
the person adjudged in direct contempt by any
court avails of the remedy of certiorari or prohibition,
the execution of the judgment shall be suspended
pending resolution of such petition provided the
contemnor files a bond fixed by the court which
rendered the judgment and conditioned that he will
abide by and perform the judgment should the
petition be decided against him.[13]
- WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The October
13, 2009 Decision and November 6, 2009 Order are
hereby annulled and set aside. Judge Bienvenido
Blancaflor is hereby permanently enjoined from
implementing the said decision and order. This
injunctive order is immediately executory.

In an order dated August 13, 2009, Judge Blancaflor informed

the petitioners that he was proceeding against them for
direct contempt and violation of their oath of office on the
basis of Tulali's Ex-Parte Manifestation.

As earlier recited, after the submission of petitioners'

respective position papers, Judge Blancaflor issued the
assailed October 13, 2009 Decision finding petitioners guilty of
direct contempt. The penalty of indefinite suspension from
the practice of law and a fine of P100,000.00 each were
imposed upon them.

Petitioners argue that the contempt proceedings are null and

void for contravening their rights to due process of law. They
claim that they were denied their rights to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against them, to
confront the witnesses and present their own evidence.
According to petitioners, Judge Blancaflor's disregard of due
process constituted grave abuse of discretion which was
further aggravated by the unlawful manner of simultaneously
conducting suspension and contempt proceedings against
them.

Petitioners further argue that the penalty imposed upon them

in the "direct contempt" proceeding is clearly oppressive and
without basis.

In its Manifestation in Lieu of Comment,[5] the Office of the

Solicitor General (OSG) stated that Judge Blancaflor
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction in holding petitioners guilty of direct
contempt as the judgment was not based on law and
evidence.

The petition is impressed with merit.

ISSUE:
1. W/N direct contempt is not immediately executory or
enforceable.
CHAPTER IV. THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT
RULING:
1. NO

34
• __
CANON 14 - A LAWYER SHALL NOT REFUSE
HIS SERVICES TO THE NEEDY.
Rule 14.01 - A lawyer shall not decline to represent
a person solely on account of the latter's race, sex.
creed or status of life, or because of his own
opinion regarding the guilt of said person.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 14.02 - A lawyer shall not decline, except for
serious and sufficient cause, an appointment as
counsel de officio or as amicus curiae, or a request
from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any of
its chapters for rendition of free legal aid.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 14.03 - A lawyer may not refuse to accept
representation of an indigent client if:
(a) he is not in a position to carry out the work
effectively or competently;
(b) he labors under a conflict of interest between
him and the prospective client or between a
present client and the prospective client.
---------------------------------------------------------
CAPTION: Jimenez v. Francisco, A.C. No. 10548, December 10,
2014
FACTS:
* Complainant was shocked upon reading the allegations in
the complaint for estafa filed by Jimenez against her. She felt
even more betrayed when she read the affidavit of Atty.
Francisco, on whom she relied as her personal lawyer and
Clarion’s corporate counsel and secretary of Clarion.
* This prompted her to file a disciplinary case against Atty.
Francisco for representing conflicting interests. According to
her, she usually conferred with Atty. Francisco regarding the
legal implications of Clarion’s transactions. More significantly,
the principal documents relative to the sale and transfer of
Clarion’s property were all prepared and drafted by Atty.
Francisco or the members of his law office.7
Atty. Francisco was the one who actively participated in the
transactions involving the sale of the Forbes property. Without
admitting the truth of the allegations in his affidavit,
complainant argued that its execution clearly betrayed the
trust and confidence she reposed on him as a lawyer. For this
reason, complainant prayed for the disbarment of Atty.
Francisco.
ISSUE:
1. W/N there is violation of the rule on conflict of interests and
disclosure of privileged communication
RULING:
1. NO, the Court finds no violation of the rule on conflict of
interests and disclosure of privileged communication
- From the foregoing, it is obvious that the rule on
conflict of interests presupposes a lawyer-client
relationship. The purpose of the rule is precisely to
protect the fiduciary nature of the ties between an
attorney and his client. Conversely, a lawyer may
not be precluded from accepting and representing
other clients on the ground of conflict of interests, if
the lawyer-client relationship does not exist in favor
of a party in the first place.
- In determining whether or not Atty. Francisco
violated the rule on conflict of interests, a scrutiny of
the partiesÊ submissions with the IBP reveals that the
complainant failed to establish that she was a client
of Atty. Francisco.
- Conflict of Interests;
- A client can only entrust confidential information to
his/her lawyer based on an expectation from the
lawyer of utmost secrecy and discretion; the lawyer,
for his part, is duty-bound to observe candor, fairness
and loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with
the client.
- Part of the lawyerÊs duty in this regard is to avoid
representing conflicting interests.·Rule 15.03, Canon
15 of the CPR provides that, „[a] lawyer shall not
represent conflicting interests except by written
consent of all concerned given after a full disclosure
of the facts.‰ „
- The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client
should ideally be imbued with the highest level of
trust and confidence. This is the standard of
confidentiality that must prevail to promote a full
disclosure of the clientÊs most confidential
information to his/her lawyer for an unhampered
exchange of information between them. Needless
to state, a client can only entrust confidential
information to his/her lawyer based on an
expectation from the lawyer of utmost secrecy and
discretion;
- the lawyer, for his part, is duty-bound to observe
candor, fairness and loyalty in all his dealings and
transactions with the client. Part of the lawyerÊs duty
in this regard is to avoid representing conflicting
interests⁄‰
- Thus, even if lucrative fees offered by prospective
clients are at stake, a lawyer must decline
professional employment if the same would trigger a
violation of the prohibition against conflict of
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 14.04 - A lawyer who accepts the cause of a
person unable to pay his professional fees shall
35
• __
observe the same standard of conduct governing
his relations with paying clients.
---------------------------------------------------------
CANON 15 - A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE
CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL
HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH
HIS CLIENTS.
---------------------------------------------------------
CAPTION: Overgaard vs. Valdez, A.C. No. 7902, March 31,
2009
FACTS:
* The complainant, engaged the services of respondent as his
legal counsel in two cases filed by him and two cases filed
against him.
Despite the receipt of the full amount of legal fees, the
respondent refused to perform any of his obligations under
their contract for legal services, ignored the complainant’s
request for a report of the status of the cases entrusted to his
care, and rejected the complainant’s demands for the return
of the money paid to him.
Complainant Overgaard filed a complaint for disbarment
against Valdez before the IBP.
During the investigation, respondent Valdez did not
participate despite due notice. He was declared in default
for failure to submit an answer and attend the mandatory
conference. He did not submit a position paper or attend the
hearing. The Court held that respondent Valdez committed
multiple violations of the canons of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and hereby DISBARRED and his name is ordered
STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
ISSUE:
1. W/N did not give due diligence to the case of his client and
violated the CPR
RULING:
1. YES, In abruptly abandoning his law office without advising
his client and without making sure that the cases he was
handling for his client were properly attended to during his
absence, and without making arrangements whereby he
would receive important mail, the respondent is clearly guilty
of gross negligence.
- Yes, the court find that respondent’s disbarment
should be upheld. From the facts of the case, and
based on his own admissions, it is evident that he has
committed multiple violations of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
- A lawyer cannot simply disappear and abandon his
clients and then rely on the convenient excuse that
there were threats to his safety. Even assuming that
there were serious threats to his person, this did not
give him the permission to desert his client and leave
the cases entrusted to his care hanging. He should
have at least exercised reasonable and ordinary
care and diligence by taking steps to ensure that
the cases he was handling were attended to and
that his client’s interest was safeguarded. If it was not
possible for him to handle the cases entrusted to his
care, he should have informed the complainant of
his predicament and asked that he be allowed to
withdraw from the case to enable the client to
engage the services of another counsel who could
properly represent him.
- Deplorably, the respondent just disappeared,
deserted his client and forgot about the cases
entrusted to his care, to the complainant’s damage
and prejudice. The respondent’s disbarment is not
anchored on his failure to do anything in relation the
cases entrusted to his care, but on his abandonment
of his client. He will not be absolved from liability on
the basis alone of these inconsequential acts which
he claims to have accomplished because the
glaring fact remains that he has failed to perform his
essential obligations to his client, to the courts and to
society. As the complainant’s lawyer, the
respondent is expected to serve his client with
competence and diligence.30 This includes not
merely reviewing the cases entrusted to his care and
giving the complainant sound legal advice, but also
properly representing his client in court, attending
scheduled hearings, preparing and filing required
pleadings, prosecuting the cases entrusted to his
care with reasonable dispatch, and urging their
termination without waiting for his client or the court
to prod him to do so. He should not idly sit by and
leave the rights of his client in a state of uncertainty.
1. YES Respondent's inaction with respect to the matters
entrusted to his care is obvious; and his failure to file an
answer to the complaint for disbarment against him and to
attend the hearings in connection therewith, without any
explanation or request for resetting, despite proper notice
from the IBP, is clear evidence of negligence on his part.
The relationship of an attorney to his client is highly fiduciary.
Canon 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
that "a lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and loyalty in all
his dealings and transactions with his client." Necessity and
public interest enjoin lawyers to be honest and truthful when
dealing with his client. A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of
his client and shall be mindful of the trust and confidence
reposed in him.29
However, instead of devoting himself to the client's cause, the
respondent avoided the complainant, forgot about the cases
he was handling for him and ostensibly abandoned him. The
client reposed his trust in his lawyer with full faith that the
lawyer would not betray him or abscond from his
responsibilities. By assuring the complainant that he would
take care of the cases included in the Retainer Agreement,
and even accepting fees, the respondent defrauded the
complainant when he did not do a single thing he was
expected to do. A lawyer shall serve his client with
36
• __
competence and diligence.30 A lawyer shall not neglect a
legal matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.31 Respondent
should indeed be held liable, for he was not just incompetent,
he was practically useless; he was not just negligent, he was
indolent; and rather than being of help to the complainant,
he prejudiced the client.
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 15.02.- A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on
privilege communication in respect of matters
disclosed to him by a prospective client.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 15.01. - A lawyer, in conferring with a
prospective client, shall ascertain as soon as
practicable whether the matter would involve a
conflict with another client or his own interest, and if
so, shall forthwith inform the prospective client.
Rule 15.03. - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting
interests except by written consent of all concerned
given after a full disclosure of the facts.
---------------------------------------------------------
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
CAPTION: Aninon v. Sabitsana, Jr., A.C. No. 5098, April 11,
2012
FACTS:
* On the basis of the attendant facts of the case, we find
substantial evidence to support Atty. SabitsanaÊs violation of
the above rule, as established by the following circumstances
on record:
- One, his legal services were initially engaged by the
complainant to protect her interest over a certain
property. The records show that upon the legal
advice of Atty. Sabitsana, the Deed of Sale over the
property was prepared and executed in the
complainantÊs favor.
- Two, Atty. Sabitsana met with Zenaida Cañete to
discuss the latterÊs legal interest over the property
subject of the Deed of Sale. At that point, Atty.
Sabitsana already had knowledge that Zenaida
CañeteÊs interest clashed with the complainantÊs
interests.
- Three, despite the knowledge of the clashing
interests between his two clients, Atty. Sabitsana
accepted the engagement from Zenaida Cañete.
ISSUE:
1. W/N Atty. Sabitsana violated the rule against conflict of
interest
RULING:
1. YES, he must not have accepted the engagement from
Zenaida Canete
- Attorney-Client Relationships; Conflict of Interests;
The relationship between a lawyer and his/her client
should ideally be imbued with the highest level of
trust and confidence; Part of the lawyerÊs duty in this
regard is to avoid representing conflicting interests,
a matter covered by Rule 15.03, Canon 15 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility
- Jurisprudence has provided three tests in
determining whether a violation of the above rule is
present in a given case.
- One test is whether a lawyer is duty-bound
to fight for an issue or claim in behalf of
one client and, at the same time, to
oppose that claim for the other client. Thus,
if a lawyerÊs argument for one client has to
be opposed by that same lawyer in
arguing for the other client, there is a
violation of the rule.
- Another test of inconsistency of interests is
whether the acceptance of a new relation
would prevent the full discharge of the
lawyerÊs duty of undivided fidelity and
loyalty to the client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the
performance of that duty.
- Still another test is whether the lawyer
would be called upon in the new relation
to use against a former client any
confidential information acquired through
their connection or previous employment.
CAPTION: Roberto Bernardino v. Atty. Victor Rey Santos, A.C.
No 10583, February 18, 2015
FACTS:
* In A.C. No. 10583, complainant Roberto C. Bernardino
(Bernardino) filed a Letter-Complaint4 against Atty. Victor Rey
Santos (Atty. Santos) before the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, praying that Atty. Santos be investigated and
subjected to disciplinary action.5
Bernardino alleged that the death certificate of his aunt,
Rufina de Castro Turla, was falsified by Atty. Santos. Atty.
Santos made it appear that Rufina Turla died in 1992, when in
fact, she died in 1990.6
Atty. Santos used the falsified death certificate to -support the
Affidavit of Self-Adjudication7 executed by Mariano Turla,
husband of Rufina Turla.8 Paragraph 6 of the Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication prepared by Atty. Santos states:
Being her surviving spouse, I am. the sole legal heir entitled to
succeed to and inherit the estate of said deceased who did
not leave any descendant or any other heir entitled to her
estate.9 (Emphasis in the original underscoring supplied)
Years later, Atty. Santos, on behalf of Marilu Turla, daughter of
Rufina and Mariano Turla,10 filed a Complaint11 for sum of
money with prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and
temporary restraining order against Bernardino, docketed as
Civil Case No. 09-269.1
37
• __
ISSUE:
1. W/N respondent violated the rule against conflict of interest
despite the previous client being dead
RULING:
1.YES, Mariano Turla died on February 5, 2009,64 while
respondent represented Marilu Turla in March 2009.65 It is
understandable why respondent was unable to obtain
Mariano Turla’s consent. Still, respondent did not present
evidence showing that he disclosed to Marilu Turla that he
previously represented Mariano Turla and assisted him in
executing the Affidavit of Self-Adjudication. Thus, the
allegation of conflict of interest against respondent was
sufficiently proven.
- . . . Canon 15 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility particularly Rule 15.03 specifically
proscribes members of the bar from representing
conflicting interests. The Supreme Court has
explained that "the proscription against
representation of conflicting interest finds
application where the conflicting interests arise with
respect to the same general matter and is
applicable however slight such adverse interest may
be; the fact that the conflict of interests is remote or
merely probable does not make the prohibition
inoperative." . . . .
- The rule on conflict of interest is based on the
fiduciary obligation in a lawyer-client relationship.
Lawyers must treat all information received from their
clients with utmost confidentiality in order to
encourage clients to fully inform their counsels of the
facts of their case.59 In Hornilla v. Atty. Salunat,60
this court explained what conflict of interest means:
- There is conflict of interest when a lawyer represents
inconsistent interests of two or more opposing
parties. The test is "whether or not in behalf of one
client, it is the lawyer’s duty to fight for an issue or
claim, but it is his duty to oppose it for the other
client. In brief, if he argues for one client, this
argument will be opposed by him when he argues
for the other client."
- This rule covers not only cases in which confidential
communications have been confided, but also
those in which no confidence has been bestowed or
will be used.
- Also, there is conflict of interests if the acceptance
of the new retainer will require the attorney to
perform an act which will injuriously affect his first
client in any matter in which he represents him and
also whether he will be called upon in his new
relation to use against his first client any knowledge
acquired through their connection. Another test of
the inconsistency of interests is whether the
acceptance of a new relation will prevent an
attorney from the full discharge of his duty of
undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite
suspicion of unfaithfulness or double dealing in the
performance thereof.61
- Applying the test to determine whether conflict of
interest exists, respondent would necessarily refute
Mariano Turla’s claim that he is Rufina Turla’s sole
heir when he agreed to represent Marilu Turla.
Worse, he knew that Mariano Turla was not the only
heir. As stated in the Report of the Commission on
Bar Discipline:
- Worse[,] the respondent himself on the witness stand
during his April 14, 2009 testimony in the Civil Case for
Sum of Money with Prayer of Writ of Preliminary
Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order
docketed as Civil Case No. 09-269 filed with the RTC
of Makati City admitted as follows: "I called the
attention of Mr. Mariano Turla[.] I . . . asked him what
about Lulu she is entitled [sic] to a share of properties
and he . . . told me, ‘Ako na ang bahala kay Lulu[,]
hindi ko pababayaan yan.’ So he asked me to
proceed with the Affidavit of Adjudication wherein
he claimed the whole [sic] properties for himself." This
very admission proves that the respondent was privy
to Marilu Turla’s standing as a legal and rightful heir
to Rufina Turla’s estate.62 (Citation omitted)
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 15.04. - A lawyer may, with the written consent
of all concerned, act as mediator, conciliator or
arbitrator in settling disputes.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 15.05. - A lawyer when advising his client, shall
give a candid and honest opinion on the merits and
probable results of the client's case, neither
overstating nor understating the prospects of the
case.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 15.06. - A lawyer shall not state or imply that
he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or
legislative body.
Rule 15.07. - A lawyer shall impress upon his client
compliance with the laws and the principles of
fairness.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 15.08. - A lawyer who is engaged in another
profession or occupation concurrently with the
practice of law shall make clear to his client
whether he is acting as a lawyer or in another
capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
38
• __
CANON 16 - A LAWYER SHALL HOLD IN
TRUST ALL MONEYS AND PROPERTIES OF
HIS CLIENT THAT MAY COME INTO HIS
PROFESSION.
---------------------------------------------------------
CAPTION: Andrada vs. Cera
A.C. No. 10187. July 22, 2015.* (formerly CBD Case No. 11-
3053)
FACTS:
* The complainant hired the respondent to represent her in an
annulment of marriage case pending before the RTC.
In order to file the annulment case, the complainant needed
to submit National Statistics Office (NSO) copies of her
children’s birth certificates – documents which could not be
obtained from the NSO because of her husband’s failure to
completely accomplish the certificates resulting in the non-
registration of the births of their two children.
The complainant gave the respondent money to process the
registration and issuance of her children’s birth certificates
with the NSO.
The complainant also gave the respondent, through a friend,
the amount of ₱10,000.00 as advance payment for the hiring
of a psychologist and/or the conduct of psychologist tests for
herself and her children.
The complainant repeatedly asked the respondent for the
NSO receipt, but the latter would always give an excuse not
to turn the receipt over to her.
This prompted the complainant to request confirmation of
payment from the NSO. She found out that the respondent
never paid nor filed applications for birth certificates.
The complainant wrote a demand letter to the respondent for
the surrender of the NSO receipt and the return of the
₱10,000.00.
ISSUE:
1. W/N Returning money to the client upon threat of criminal
liability restitutes the violation of Canon 16
RULING:
1. NO
- The court sustain the IBP Board of Governors’ findings
of administrative liability, as well as its recommended
penalty of one (1) year suspension from the practice
of law.
- The respondent, violated Rule 16.039 of Canon 16
(which provides that “a lawyer shall deliver the funds
and property of his client when due or upon
demand”) when he failed to return the
complainant’s money upon demand. We note that it
was only after a year that the respondent, under
threat of a criminal case filed against him, returned
the complainant’s money. The respondent’s
restitution cannot serve to mitigate his administrative
liability as he returned the complainant’s money not
voluntarily but for fear of possible criminal liability.
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 16.01 - A lawyer shall account for all money or
property collected or received for or from the
client.
---------------------------------------------------------
Fiduciary Relationship
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 16.02 - A lawyer shall keep the funds of each
client separate and apart from his own and those of
others kept by him.
---------------------------------------------------------
Commingling of Funds
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 16.03 - A lawyer shall deliver the funds and
property of his client when due or upon demand.
However, he shall have a lien over the funds and
may apply so much thereof as may be necessary
to satisfy his lawful fees and disbursements, giving
notice promptly thereafter to his client. He shall also
have a lien to the same extent on all judgments
and executions he has secured for his client as
provided for in the Rules of Court.
---------------------------------------------------------
Delivery of Funds [RULES]
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 16.04 - A lawyer shall not borrow money from
his client unless the client's interest are fully
protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice. Neither shall a lawyer lend
money to a client except, when in the interest of
justice, he has to advance necessary expenses in a
legal matter he is handling for the client.
---------------------------------------------------------
Borrowing or Lending
CAPTION: Foronda v. Alvarez, A.C. No. 9976, June 25, 2014
FACTS:
* The complainant institute a case for the nullification of her
marriage. The respondent was referred to her and the
complainant agreed to engage his services for a fee of
₱195,000.00.
The complainant averred that the respondent promised to file
the petition after he received the full payment of his
39
• __

attorney’s fee. The complainant inquired about the status of full payment of his attorneyÊs fee, or on June 11,
her case and was allegedly told by the respondent that her 2008. In September 2008, the complainant
petition was pending in court; and in another time, she was inquired about the status of her case and was
told that a decision by the court was already forthcoming. allegedly told by the respondent that her petition
However, when she came back to the country in May 2009, was pending in court; and in another time, she
the respondent told her that her petition was still pending in
was told that a decision by the court was already
court and apologized for the delay. Eventually, the
forthcoming. However, when she came back to
complainant was able to get a copy of her petition and
the country in May 2009, the respondent told her
found out that it was filed a year later.
that her petition was still pending in court and
apologized for the delay. Eventually, the
The complainant further alleged in her complaint that the
week after she signed the contract of service with the complainant was able to get a copy of her
respondent, the latter requested for a meeting. Thinking that petition and found out that it was filed only on
they were going to discuss her case, she agreed. But during July 16, 2009.5
the meeting, the respondent invited her to be an investor in
the lending business allegedly ran by the respondent’s sister- 3. YES
in-law which he said can earn five percent (5%) interest per - Respondents unfulfilled promise to settle his
month. obligation and the issuance of worthless checks
have seriously breached the complainantÊs trust.
According to the complainant, upon presentment of these - She went so far as to file multiple criminal cases for
checks, the drawee-bank honored the first two (2) checks, violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang (B.P. Blg.) 22
but the rest were dishonored for being drawn against a against him.·It cannot be denied that the
closed account. When she brought the matter to the respondentÊs unfulfilled promise to settle his
respondent, he promised to pay her in cash. He actually paid obligation and the issuance of worthless checks
her certain amounts as interest through her representative. have seriously breached the complainantÊs trust.
Nevertheless, the respondent failed to pay the entire She went so far as to file multiple criminal cases for
obligation as promised. violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against him. „The relationship
of an attorney to his client is highly fiduciary. Canon
ISSUE: 15 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides
1. W/N Violation of Canon 16.04 transpire, borrowing that Âa lawyer shall observe candor, fairness and
loyalty in all his dealings and transactions with his
client’s money
client.Ê Necessity and public interest enjoin lawyers
to be honest and truthful when dealing with his
2. W/N Violation of Canon 15.06 transpired
client.‰ All told, this Court finds that the respondent
is liable for violation of Canons 15, 17, Rule 18.04,
and Rule 16.04 of the Code of Professional
3. W/N the bounced checks reflected violations the
Responsibility. Likewise, he is also liable under Rule
respondents ethical commitment to candor
1.01 thereof pursuant to our ruling in Co v. Atty.
Bernardino, 282 SCRA 102 (1998).
RULING:
1. YES ---------------------------------------------------------
- Respondent induced complainant to lend him
money at 5% interest per month but failed to pay the
same. This is admitted by respondent. Rule 16.04
provides that a lawyer shall not borrow money from
his client unless the clientÊs interests are fully
protected by the nature of the case or by
independent advice. Obviously, respondent
borrowed money from his client and his clientÊs
interest was not fully protected. In fact, respondent
repeatedly failed to comply with his promise to pay
complainant. The fact that he subsequently paid
complainant more than the amount due from him
as part of the settlement of the criminal complaint
filed by her against him hardly serves to mitigate his
liability. x x x.
2. YES, Violation of Canon 15.06 of the Code of
Professional Responsibilities when [the respondent]
represented to [the complainant] that he know[s] of court
personnel who will help facilitate [the complainantÊs]
annulment case;
- The complainant averred that the respondent
promised to file the petition after he received the

40
• __
CHAPTER IV. THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT
CAPTION: Aro v. The Hon. Nanawa, G.R. No. L-24163 (1969)
FACTS:
* Atty. Regino B. Aro (petitioner herein) to file a separate
action against both the plaintiffs and defendants (private
respondents herein) with respect to his alleged attorney’s fees
That the services of herein petitioner, as practising attorney,
was engaged by respondents Luis Magtibay and Pablo
Magtibay for the prosecution of their claim, as heirs, in the
estate of their deceased uncle Lucio Magtibay, consisting of
properties which were in the possession of the respondents
Aurelia Martinez, 1 spouses Gregorio Lontok and Maria
Mendoza and spouses Maximo Porto and Rosario Andaya.
Lawyer was impliedly dismissed by the compromise
agreement done behind his back
ISSUE:
1. W/N client may, at anytime, dismiss his attorney without
exceptions
RULING:
1. NO, Must be justifiable, otherwise, attorney is entitled to
recover compensation.
- ·A client may, at anytime, dismiss his attorney or
substitute another in his place‰, (Sec. 26, Rule 138)
but it must be emphasized that the same provision,
which is an incorporation of Republic Act 636 into
the Rules of Court, also provides that „if the contract
between client and attorney had been reduced to
writing and the dismissal of the attorney was without
justifiable cause, he shall be entitled to recover from
the client full compensation.‰
- In the case at bar, by entering into the compromise
agreement in question and even inserting therein a
prayer to the court to dismiss their case f iled by
petitioner, (see footnote 6, ante) petitionerÊs clients
impliedly dismissed him. (Rustia vs. the Court, etc.,
supra.)
- Such implied dismissal appears to Us to have been
made without justifiable cause, none is urged
anywhere in the record, and so, the above-quoted
provision of Section 26, Rule 138 applies here. The
terms of the compromise in question, as spelled out
in Annex A of Annex I of the petition, indicate clearly
that Aurelia Martinez, the defendant auntin-law of
petitionerÊs clients, acknowledged that the rights of
said clients were practically as alleged by petitioner
in the complaint he filed for them.
- In other words, through the services of petitioner, his
clients secured, in effect, a recognition, which had
been previously denied by their aunt-in-law, that
they were entitled to a 1/4 share in the estate left by
their uncle. We hold that under these circumstances,
and since it appears that said clients have no other
means to pay petitioner, since they instituted their
case as paupers, and that their aunt-in-law was
aware of the terms of their contract of professional
services with petitioner, said clients had no right to
waive the portion of their such acknowledged rights
in favor of their opponent to the extent that such
waiver would prejudice the stipulated contingent
interest of their lawyer and their aunt-in-law had no
right to accept such waiver unqualifiedly.
CAPTION: Huyssen v. Atty. Gutierrez, A.C. No. 6707 (2006)
FACTS:
* Respondent Atty. Gutierrez, a Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation officer, received US$20,000 from complainant
Huyssen.
Accused of falsely representing that it was needed in
complainant’s application for visa and failing to return the
same, respondent denied misappropriating the said amount,
claiming that he gave it to a certain Atty. Mendoza who
assisted complainant and children in their application for visa.
He failed however to substantiate such denial.
41
• __

likely to be magnified in the public eye.·

Atty. Gutierrez had many alibis on why the money could not
immediately be returned to the complainant, and promised 5.Disbarment; Suspension; Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised
her several times that he would repay her out of his personal Rules of Court mandates that a lawyer may be disbarred or
funds. suspended for any of the acts enumerated therein.

He even issued personal post-dated checks on this, but which Section 27, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court mandates
later bounced. that a lawyer may be disbarred or suspended by this Court for
any of the following acts:
WHEREFORE, Atty. Fred L. Gutierrez is hereby DISBARRED from - (1) deceit;
the practice of law and ordered to return the amount he - (2) malpractice;
received from the complainant with legal interest from his - (3) gross misconduct in office;
receipt of the money until payment - (4) grossly immoral conduct;
- (5) conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
ISSUE: - (6) violation of the lawyerÊs oath;
1. Who has the burden of proof when a lawyer’s integrity is - (7) willful disobedience of any lawful order of a
being challenged, when there is evidence? superior court; and
- (8) willfully appearing as an attorney for a party
RULING: without authority to do so.
1. Member of the bar must meet the issue and overcome the
evidence against him
- When the integrity of a member of the bar is CAPTION: Maderada v. Judge Mediodea, A.M. No MTJ-02-
challenged, it is not enough that he deny the 1459, October 14, 2003
charges against him; he must meet the issue and
overcome the evidence against him
FACTS:
- ·It is undisputed that respondent admitted having
* Imelda Y. Maderada, a clerk of court, fied a complaint
received the US$20,000 from complainant as shown
against Judge Ernesto H. Mediodea .
by his signatures in the petty cash vouchers and
receipts he prepared, on the false representation
In the Complaint, the judge was charged with gross
that that it was needed in complainantÊs
ignorance of the law amounting to grave misconduct for
application for visa with the BID. Respondent denied
failing to observe and apply the Revised Rule on Summary
he misappropriated the said amount and interposed
Procedure in Civil Case No. 252.
the defense that he delivered it to a certain Atty.
Mendoza who assisted complainant and children in
Prior to the said case, Maderada filed an action for forcible
their application for visa in the BID. Such defense
entry with a prayer for preliminary injunction, temporary
remains unsubstantiated as he failed to submit
restraining order (TRO) and damages where respondent
evidence on the matter.
Judge was designated to hear and try the case.
- DEFENSE OF DENIAL
- It is settled that denial is inherently a weak
Maderada filed a petition for Inhibition of Judge Mediodea
defense.·The defense of denial proffered
after the three motions of the Maderada praying for a
by respondent is, thus, not convincing. It is
judgment be rendered were denied by Judge Mediodea.
settled that denial is inherently a weak
defense. To be believed, it must be
Maderada in the said case appeared as counsel for herself
buttressed by a strong evidence of non-
and her co-plaintiff. However, the Office of the Court
culpability; otherwise, such denial is purely
Administrator recommended, along with a recommendation
self-serving and is with nil evidentiary value
that the Judge be fined, that complainant Maderada be also
fined in the amount of P1,000 for appearing as counsel
2. RespondentÊs act of asking money from complainant in
without authority from this Court, with a stern warning that any
consideration of the latterÊs pending application for visas is
similar infraction in the future would be dealt with more
violative of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility,
severely.
which prohibits members of the Bar from engaging or
participating in any unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful acts
According to the OCA, officials and employees of the
judiciary must devote their full time to government service to
3. The practice of law is a special privilege bestowed only
ensure the efficient and speedy administration of justice.
upon those who are competent intellectually, academically
and morally; The possession of good moral character must be
Although they are not absolutely prohibited from engaging in
continuous as a requirement to the enjoyment of the privilege
a vocation or a profession, they should do so only with prior
of law practice·otherwise, the loss thereof is a ground for the
approval of this Court.
revocation of such privilege.·

The OCA added that engaging in any private business,

4. Government lawyers should be more sensitive to their
vocation or profession without prior approval of the Court is
professional obligations as their disreputable conduct is more
tantamount to moonlighting, which amounts to malfeasance

42
• __
in office.
ISSUE:
1. W/N defending oneself is considered a practice of law
RULING:
1.NO, Individuals have long been permitted to manage,
prosecute and defend their own actions; and when they do
so they are not considered to be in the practice of law
- Court Employees; Practice of Law; A partyÊs right to
conduct litigation personally is recognized by law;
When they act as their own attorneys, they are
restricted to the same rules of evidence and
procedure as those qualified to practice law;
Individuals have long been permitted to manage,
prosecute and defend their own actions; and when
they do so they are not considered to be in the
practice of law
- Since complainant was charged with engaging in a
private vocation or profession when she appeared
on her own behalf in court, the necessary
implication was that she was in the practice of law.
We clarify. A partyÊs right to conduct litigation
personally is recognized by law. Section 34 of Rule
138 of the Rules of Court provides: „SEC. 34. By
whom litigation conducted.·In the court of a justice
of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in
person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed
by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an
attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct
his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and
his appearance must be either personal or by a duly
authorized member of the bar.‰ This provision
means that in a litigation, parties may personally do
everything during its progress·from its
commencement to its termination. When they,
however, act as their own attorneys, they are
restricted to the same rules of evidence and
procedure as those qualified to practice law;
otherwise, ignorance would be unjustifiably
rewarded. Individuals have long been permitted to
manage, prosecute and defend their own actions;
and when they do so, they are not considered to be
in the practice of law. „One does not practice law
by acting for himself any more than he practices
medicine by rendering first aid to himself.‰
- Private Practice Defined; Complainant cannot be
said to be in the practice of law.·Private practice
has been defined by this Court as follows: „x x x.
Practice is more than an isolated appearance, for it
consists in frequent or customary action, a
succession of acts of the same kind. In other words, it
is frequent habitual exercise
- STRICTLY APPEARING FOR ONE SELF ONLY:
- The raison dÊetre for allowing litigants to
represent themselves in court will not apply
when a person is already appearing for
another party.·It was also clearly
established that complainant had
appeared on behalf of her coplaintiff in
the case below, for which act the former
cannot be completely exonerated.
- Her being an employee of the judiciary does not
remove from her the right to proceedings in propria
persona or to self-representation.·The law allows
persons who are not lawyers by profession to litigate
their own case in court. The right of complainant to
litigate her case personally cannot be taken away
from her
CAPTION: Masmud v. NLRC, G.R. No. 183385, February 13,
2009
FACTS:
* In 2003, Evangeline Masmud filed a complaint on behalf of
her late husband Alexander against First Victory Shipping
Services for non payment of permanent disability benefits,
medical expenses, sickness allowances, moral and
exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees of his late husband
Alexander.
Alexander hire Atty. Go as his counsel. In consideration of
Atty. Go’s legal services, Alexander agreed to pay attorneys
fees on a contingent basis, as follows: 20 % of total monetary
claims as settled or paid and an additional 10 % in case of
appeal.
It was likewise agreed that any award of attorney’s fees shall
pertain to respondent’s law firm as compensation.
The Labour Arbiter rendered a decision granting the
monetary claims of Alexander.
However Alexander’s employer filed an appeal with the
NLRC. During the pendency of the proceedings before the
NLRC, Alexander died thereafter Atty. Go substitute
Evangelina as complainant.
The NLRC denied the motion of the Alexander’s employer. On
appeal before the CA, the decision of the Labour Arbiter was
affirmed with modification.
Eventually, the decision of the NLRC became final and
executor and Atty. Go moved for the execution of the NLRC
decision, which was granted by the Labour Arbiter.
The surety bond of the employer was garnished and Atty. Go
moved for the release of the said amount to Evangelina.
The Labour Arbiter directed the NLRC Cashier to release the
amount of P 3, 454, 079. 20 to Evangelina and P 680,000.00 will
go to Atty. Go.
Dissatisfied, Atty. Go filed a motion to record an enforce
attorneys lien alleging that Evangelina reneged on their
contigent fee agreement. Evangelina paid only the amount
of P680,000.00, equivalent to 20% of the award as attorneys
fees, thus, leaving a balance of 10% pertaining to the counsel
as attorneys fees.
The case is Evangelina’s certiorari against CA’s decision to
43
• __
give Atty Go’s 39% contingent fee P1,347,950.
Evangelina manifested that Atty. Go’s claim for attorneys fees
of 40% of the total monetary award was null and void based
on Article 111 of the Labour Code is the law that should
govern Atty. Go’s compensation as her counsel.
- ART. 111. AttorneyÊs fees.·(a) In cases of unlawful
withholding of wages the culpable party may be
assessed attorneyÊs fees equivalent to ten percent
of the amount of the wages recovered.‰
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Atty. Go’s compensation is under the
concept of attorneys fees governed by Section 24, Rule 138
of the Rules of Court or under the extraordinary concept
governed by Article 111 of the Labour Code.
RULING:
1.Yes Atty. Go’s compensation should be governed by
Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and not Article 111
of the Labour Code.
- Contrary to EvangelinaÊs proposition, Article 111 of
the Labor Code deals with the extraordinary
concept of attorneyÊs fees. It regulates the amount
recoverable as attorneyÊs fees in the nature of
damages sustained by and awarded to the
prevailing party. It may not be used as the standard
in fixing the amount payable to the lawyer by his
client for the legal services he rendered.
- The retainer contract between Atty. Go and
Evangelina provides for a contingent fee. The
contract shall control in the determination of the
amount to be paid, unless found by the court to be
unconscionable or unreasonable. Attorney's fees are
unconscionable if they affront one's sense of justice,
decency or reasonableness. The decree of
unconscionability or unreasonableness of a
stipulated amount in a contingent fee contract will
not preclude recovery. It merely justifies the fixing by
the court of a reasonable compensation for the
lawyer's services
- The issue of the reasonableness of attorneyÊs fees is
a question of fact. Well-settled is the rule that
conclusions and findings of fact of the CA are
entitled to great weight on appeal and will not be
disturbed except for strong and cogent reasons
which are absent in the case at bench. The findings
of the CA, which are supported by substantial
evidence, are almost beyond the power of review
by the Supreme Court.24
- Considering that Atty. Go successfully represented
his client, it is only proper that he should receive
adequate compensation for his efforts.
CAPTION: Pimentel, Jr. v. Attys. Llorente and Salayon, A.C. No.
4680 (2000)
FACTS:
* Attys. Antonio Llorente and Ligaya Salayon were election
officers of the COMELEC and held the position of Chairman
and Vice-Chairman respectively for the Pasig City Board of
Candidates.
The respondents helped conduct and oversee the 1995
elections.
Then Senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. alleged that
the respondents tampered with the votes received by them
by either adding more votes for particular candidates in their
Statement of Votes (SoV) or reducing the number of votes of
particular candidates in their SoV.
Pimentel filed an administrative complaint for their
disbarment. Respondents argued that the discrepancies were
due to honest mistake, oversight and fatigue.
Respondents also argued that the IBP Board of Governors had
already exonerated them from any offense and that the
motion for reconsideration filed by Pimentel was not filed in
time.
ISSUE:
1. W/N there is no limit to the defense of honest mistake or
oversight due to fatigue, in the performance of official duty
RULING:
1. NO, There is a limit to what can be construed as an honest
mistake or oversight due to fatigue, in the performance of
official duty
- Considering that private respondents Salayon and
Llorente, in invoking the defenses of honest mistake,
oversight due to fatigue, and performance of
ministerial duties, virtually admitted the existence of
the discrepancies in the total number of votes
garnered by petitioner and other senatorial
candidates, which discrepancies by no stretch of
the imagination could be dismissed as negligible or
inconsequential, there is not merely a strong
suspicion that they actually committed the election
offense with which they are charged.
- The burden of proof appears to have shifted to
them to prove that the said discrepancies cannot
be considered illegal and criminal.
CAPTION: Pineda v. Atty. De Jesus et. al., G.R. No. 155224,
August 23, 2006
FACTS:
* On April 6, 1993, Aurora Pineda filed an action for
declaration of nullity of marriage against petitioner Vinson
Pineda in the RTC of Pasig City, docketed as JDRC Case No.
2568. Petitioner was represented by respondents Attys.
Clodualdo de Jesus, Carlos Ambrosio and Emmanuel
Mariano.
During the pendency of the case, Aurora proposed a
settlement to petitioner regarding her visitation rights over
their minor child and the separation of their properties. The
proposal was accepted by the petitioner and both parties
subsequently filed a motion for approval of their agreement.
44
• __
This was approved by the trial court. On November 25, 1998,
the marriage between the petitioner and Aurora Pineda was
declared null and void.
Throughout the proceedings, respondent counsels were well
compensated. They including their relatives and friends, even
availed of free products and treatments from petitioner’s
dermatology clinic. This notwithstanding, they billed petitioner
additional legal fees amounting to P16.5 million which the
latter, however, refused to pay. Instead, petitioner issued
them several checks totaling P1.12 million as “full payment for
settlement.”
Still not satisfied, respondents filed in the same trial court a
motion for payment of lawyers’ fees for P50 million.
On April 14, 2000, trial court ordered petitioner to pay P5
million to Atty. De Jesus, P2 million to Atty. Ambrosio and P2
million to Atty. Mariano. On appeal, the Court of Appeals
reduced the amount as follows: P1 million to Atty. de Jesus,
P500,000 to Atty. Ambrosio and P500,000 to Atty. Mariano. The
motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, this recourse.
ISSUE:
1. W/N Respondents claim for additional legal fees was not
justified.
RULING:
1. NO, RespondentsÊ claim for additional legal fees was not
justified. The award of additional attor-neyÊs fees in favor of
respondents is hereby DELETED.
- They could not charge petitioner a fee based on
percentage, absent an express agreement to that
effect. The payments to them in cash, checks, free
products and services from petitionerÊs business·all
of which were not denied by respondents·more
than sufficed for the work they did. The „full
payment for settlement‰ 13 should have
discharged petitionerÊs obligation to them.
- Demanding P50 million on top of the generous sums
and perks already given to them was an act of
unconscionable greed which is shocking to this
Court.
- As lawyers, respondents should be reminded that
they are members of an honorable profession, the
primary vision of which is justice. It is respondentsÊ
despicable behavior which gives lawyering a bad
name in the minds of some people. The vernacular
has a word for it: nagsasamantala. The practice of
law is a decent profession and not a moneymaking
trade. Compensation should be but a mere
incident. 12
CAPTION: Query of Atty. Silverio-Buffe, A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC
(2009)
FACTS:
* The query, as originally framed, related to Section 7(b) (2) of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713, as amended (or the Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees). This provision places a limitation on public
officials and employees during their incumbency, and those
already separated from government employment for a
period of one (1) year after separation, in engaging in the
private practice of their profession.
In her letter-query, Atty. Buffe posed these questions: „Why
may an incumbent engage in private practice under (b)(2),
assuming the same does not conflict or tend to conflict with
his official duties, but a non-incumbent like myself cannot, as
is apparently prohibited by the last paragraph of Sec. 7? Why
is the former allowed, who is still occupying the very public
position that he is liable to exploit, but a non-incumbent like
myself · who is no longer in a position of possible abuse/
exploitation · cannot?‰1
Atty. Buffe further alleged that the intention of the above
prohibition is to remove the exercise of clout, influence or
privity to insider information, which the incumbent public
employee may use in the private practice of his profession.
However, this situation did not obtain in her case, since she
had already resigned as Clerk of Court of RTC-Branch 18 of
Romblon. She advanced the view that she could engage in
the private practice of law before RTCBranch 81 of Romblon,
so long as her appearance as legal counsel shall not conflict
or tend to conflict with her former duties as former Clerk of
Court of that Branch.
Atty. BuffeÊs admitted appearance, before the very same
branch she served and immediately after her resignation, is a
violation that we cannot close our eyes to and that she
cannot run away from under the cover of the letter-query she
filed and her petition for declaratory relief, whose dismissal
she manifested she would pursue up to our level. We note
that at the time she filed her letter-query (on March 4, 2008),
Atty. Buffe had already appeared before Branch 81 in at least
three (3) cases. The terms of Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713
did not deter her in any way and her misgivings about the
fairness of the law cannot excuse any resulting violation she
committed. In other words, she took the risk of appearing
before her own Branch and should suffer the consequences
of the risk she took.
ISSUE:
1. W/N appearing in her own branch where she previously
worked at, violates Section 7(b)(2) of R.A. No. 6713
RULING:
1. YES, Supreme Court takes seriously the practice of law with
the same office a government personnel used to work with.·
- Under the circumstances, we find that her actions
merit a penalty of fine of P10,000.00, together with a
stern warning to deter her from repeating her
transgression and committing other acts of
professional misconduct. This penalty reflects as well
the CourtÊs sentiments on how seriously the retired,
resigned or separated officers and employees of the
Judiciary should regard and observe the prohibition
against the practice of law with the office that they
used to work with.
- WHEREFORE, premises considered, we find Atty.
Karen M. Silverio-Buffe GUILTY of professional
45
• __
misconduct for violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and
Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
She is hereby FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand
Pesos (P10,000.00), and STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of this violation and the commission of
other acts of professional misconduct shall be dealt
with more severely.
CAPTION: Rayos v. Atty. Hernandez, G.R. No. 169079, February
12, 2007
FACTS:
* Hernandez was the counsel of Rayos in a Civil Case for
damages against NAPOCOR.
RTC dismissed the complaint. Upon appeal, CA reversed the
RTC decision and awarded damages in favor of Rayos.
SC affirmed the CA Decision which became final and
executory. NAPOCOR issued a Check in the amount of
₱1,060,800.00 payable to Rayos which was turned over to
Atty. Hernandez as counsel.
When Rayos demanded the turn over of the check, Atty.
Hernandez refused and justified his retention as a means to
ensure payment of his attorney’s fees.
Rayos initiated this complaint for disbarment for Atty.
Hernandez’ failure to return the rest of the award in the
amount of ₱557,961.21.
In his answer Atty. Hernandez alleged that they had a
contract for attorney’s fees on a contingent basis on 40%- 60%
sharing of the court award. Atty.
Hernandez was entitled to receive 60% of the award – 40% as
attorney’s fees and 20% as litigation expenses. He
asseverated that he deposited Rayos’ share of the 40%
award in a bank under Rayos’ name.
ISSUE:
1. Whether Atty. Hernandez is justified in retaining the amount
awarded to Rayos to assure payment of his attorney’s fees.
RULING:
1. NO. Moneys collected by an attorney on a judgment
rendered in favor of his client constitute trust funds and must
be immediately paid over to the client. Canon 16 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility provides that:
- CANON 16 - A lawyer shall hold in trust all moneys
and properties of his client that may come into his
possession. Rule 16.01 – A lawyer shall account for all
money or property collected or received for or from
the client.
- When Atty. Hernandez withheld and refused to
deliver the check, he breached the trust reposed on
him. The claim that Rayos failed to pay his attorney’s
fees is not an excuse for Atty. Hernandez’ failure to
deliver the amount.
- the fact alone that a lawyer has a lien for fees on
moneys in his hands collected for his client, does not
relieve him of his duty to promptly account for the
moneys received; his failure to do so constitutes
professional misconduct. Thus, what respondent
should have properly done was to provide the
petitioner with an accounting before deducting his
attorney’s fees and then to turn over the remaining
balance of the award collected.
- Rule 16.03- A lawyer shall deliver the funds
and property of his client when due or
upon demand. However, he shall have a
lien over the funds and may apply so much
thereof as may be necessary to satisfy his
lawful fees and disbursements, giving
notice promptly thereafter to his client. He
shall also have a lien to the same extent on
all judgments and executions he has
secured for his client as provided for in the
Rules of Court.
CAPTION: Atty Rustia v. The Judge of First Instance of
Batangas, G.R. No. L-19695, November 17, 1922
FACTS:
*
It appears from the record that on July 31, 1921, the
respondent Justo Porcuna, for himself and on behalf of his
wife, the respondent Rosa H. de Porcuna, by means of a
written contract, retained the petitioner to represent them as
their lawyer in case No. 1435 then pending in the Court of First
Instance of Batangas.
The contract fixed the petitioner's fee at P200 in advance with
an additional contingent fee of P1,300. It was also provided in
the contract that Justo Porcuna should not compromise the
claim against the defendant in the case without express
consent of his lawyer, the herein petitioner.
After trial, the petitioner then being plaintiffs' attorney of
record, the Court of First Instance, under date of December
24, 1921, rendered judgment in favor of Justo Porcuna and
Rosa H. de Porcuna ordering the defendant Eulalia
Magsombol to return to them 602 pieces of cloth or in default
thereof to pay to them the sum of P3,250.
BUT The plaintiffs presented the following motion in the Court
of First Instance: "The plaintiffs, without any further intervention
of their attorney, now appear before this Honorable Court
and respectfully aver: "That, through Mr. Miguel Olgado, they
already settled this case with the herein defendant.
- "That the basis of the compromise is that we, the
plaintiffs, finally agree that we should be paid the
amount of eight hundred pesos (P800) in two
installments; P300 to be paid on this same date, and
the remaining five hundred pesos (P500) at the end
of March, 1922.
- 'That we, the plaintiffs, recognize not to have any
further rights in this case than to the aforesaid
amount of eight hundred pesos (P800) and that this is
the total amount the defendant Eulalia Magsombol
46
• __
should pay us, and we have no right whatever to
any other amount than the aforementioned
The petitioner alleges that he did not discover the dismissal of
the action until April 4, 1922. After an unsuccessful effort to
obtain a reconsideration of the order of dismissal f rom the
trial court, he filed the present petition for a writ of certiorari.
By resolution dated October 24, 1922, this court denied the
petition and upon motion of the petitioner we shall now
briefly state our reasons for such denial
ISSUE:
1. W/N The Judge of First Instance of Batangas exceeded his
jurisdiction in dismissing a pending action at the instance of
the parties but without the intervention of the attorney for the
plaintiff in the case, the herein petitioner
RULING:
1. NO
- CIVIL PROCEDURE; RIGHT OF CLIENT TO DISMISS
LAWYER. Both at the common law and under
section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure a client
may dismiss his lawyer at any time or at any stage of
the proceedings and there is nothing to prevent a
litigant from appearing before the court to conduct
his own litigation. (Sec. 34, Code of Civil Procedure.)
- COMPROMISE OF SUIT BY CLIENT.·A client has a right
to compromise the suit without the intervention of his
lawyer.
- "Though there is a valid agreement for the payment
to the attorney of a large proportion of the sum
recovered in case of success, this does not give the
attorney such an interest in the cause of action that
it prevents plaintiff from compromising the suit." (4
Cyc., 990, and authorities cited in Note 6; see also
Louque vs. Dejan, 129 La., 519; Price vs. Western
Loan and Savings Co., 19 Ann. Cas., 589 and Note.)
- The petitioner might have protected his interests by
entering an attorney's lien under section 37 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
CAPTION: Samonte v. Atty. Gatdula, A.M. No. P-99-1292 (1999)
FACTS:
* Complainant alleges that she is the authorized
representative of her sister Flor Borromeo de Leon, the plaintiff,
in Civil Case No. 37-14552 for ejectment, filed with the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37. A
typographical error was committed in the complaint which
stated that the address of defendant is No. 63-C instead of
63-B, P. Tuazon Blvd.,Cubao, Quezon City. The mistake was
rectified by the filing of an amended complaint which was
admitted by the Court. A decision was rendered in favor of
the plaintiff who subsequently filed a motion for execution.
Complainant, however, was surprised to receive a temporary
restraining order signed by Judge Prudencio Castillo of Branch
220, RTC, Quezon City, where Atty. Rolando Gatdula is the
Branch Clerk of Court, enjoining the execution of the decision
of the Metropolitan Trial Court. Complainant alleges that the
issuance of the temporary restraining order was hasty and
irregular as she was never notified of the application for
preliminary injunction.
Complainant further alleges that when she went to Branch
220, RTC, Quezon City, to inquire about the reason for the
issuance of the temporary restraining order, respondent Atty.
Rolando Gatdula, blamed her lawyer for writing the wrong
address in the complaint for ejectment, and told her that if
she wanted the execution to proceed, she should change
her lawyer and retain the law office of respondent, at the
same time giving his calling card; otherwise she will not be
able to eject the defendant Dave Knope.
Respondent Gatdula claims that thereafter complainant
returned to his office, and informed him that she wanted to
change counsel and that a friend of hers recommended
For failure of the complainant to appear at the several
hearings despite notice, she failed to substantiate her
allegations in the complaint, particularly that herein
respondent gave her his calling card and tried to convince
her to change her lawyer
ISSUE:
1. W/N ATTY Rolando R. Gatdula guilty of an infraction in the
alleged engaging in the private practice of law soliciting
services to complainant which is in conflict with his official
functions as Branch Clerk of Court.
RULING:
1. YES,
- Finding: We agree with the investigating judge that
the respondent is guilty of an infraction. The
complainant, by her failure to appear at the
hearings, failed to substantiate her allegation that it
was the respondent who gave her the calling card
and that he tried to convince her to change
counsels. We find however, that while the
respondent vehemently de-nies the complainantÊs
allegations, he does not deny that his name
appears on the calling card attached to the
complaint, which admittedly came into the hands of
the complainant.
- Time and again this Court has said that the conduct
and behavior of every one connected with an
office charged with the dispensation of justice, from
the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be
circumscribed with the heavy burden of
responsibility. His conduct, at all times must not only
be characterized by propriety and decorum but
above all else must be above suspicion.
CAPTION: Tejano v. Baterina. A.C. No. 8235, January 27, 2015
FACTS:
*
Before the Court is a verified administrative complaint for
disbarment against Atty. Benjamin F. Baterina.
47
• __
First, it appears that respondentÊs failure to appear in
representation of his clients in the said civil case before the
RTC was due to his two-year suspension from the practice of
law in 2001. While this is a justified reason for his
nonappearance, respondent, however, manifestly failed to
properly inform the RTC of this fact.
WHEREFORE, Atty. Benjamin F. Baterina is found GUILTY of
gross negligence. He is SUSPENDED from the practice of law
for five (5) years. He is also STERNLY WARNED that a repetition
of the same or a similar offense will be dealt with more
severely
ISSUE:
1. W/N Atty. Baterina’s duty to his clients automatically cease
with his suspension.
RULING:
1. NO, Atty. Baterina’s duty to his clients did not automatically
cease with his suspension.
- even one suspended from practicing the profession
· owes it to his client to not „sit idly by and leave the
rights of his client in a state of uncertainty
- A lawyer · even one suspended from practicing the
profession · owes it to his client to not „sit idly by and
leave the rights of his client in a state of uncertainty.
‰ The client „should never be left groping in the
dark‰ and instead must be „adequately and fully
informed about the developments in his case.‰
Atty. Baterina practically abandoned this duty when
he allowed the proceedings to run its course without
any effort to safeguard his clientsÊ welfare in the
meantime. His failure to file the required pleadings
on his clientsÊ behalf constitutes gross negligence in
violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility
and renders him subject to disciplinary action. The
penalties for a lawyerÊs failure to file the required
brief or pleading range from warning, reprimand,
fine, suspension, or in grave cases, disbarment.
- When a lawyer agrees to take up a client’s cause,
he makes a commitment to exercise due diligence
in protecting the latter’s rights. Once a lawyer’s
services are engaged, “he is duty bound to serve his
client with competence.
- A lawyer – even one suspended from practicing the
profession – owes it to his client to not “sit idly by and
leave the rights of his client in a state of uncertainty.
- When a lawyer agrees to take up a clientÊs cause,
he makes a commitment to exercise due diligence
in protecting the latterÊs rights. Once a lawyerÊs
services are engaged, „he is duty-bound to serve his
client with competence, and to attend to his
clientÊs cause with diligence, care and devotion
regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee or for
free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on
him.‰ A lawyerÊs acceptance to take up a case
„impliedly stipulates [that he will] carry it to its
termination, that is, until the case becomes final and
executory.‰
---------------------------------------------------------
CANON 17 - A LAWYER OWES FIDELITY TO
THE CAUSE OF HIS CLIENT AND HE SHALL
BE MINDFUL OF THE TRUST AND
CONFIDENCE REPOSED IN HIM.
---------------------------------------------------------
Fidelity to Client’s Cause
---------------------------------------------------------
CANON 18 - A LAWYER SHALL SERVE HIS
CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE AND
DILIGENCE.
---------------------------------------------------------
Competence and Diligence
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal
matter without adequate preparation.
---------------------------------------------------------
Adequate Preparation
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 18.03 - A lawyer shall not neglect a legal
matter entrusted to him, and his negligence in
connection therewith shall render him liable.
CAPTION: Reynaldo Ramirez v. Atty. Mercedes Buhayang-
Margallo, A.C. No. 10537, February 3, 2015
FACTS:
* Complainant Reynaldo Ramirez (Ramirez) engaged Atty.
Margallo's services as legal counsel in a civil case for Quieting
of Title entitled ªSpouses Roque v. Ramirez.º The case was
initiated before the Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal,
Branch 68.
Petitioner's Contention:
Ramirez alleged that Atty. Margallo had violated Canon 17
and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility. According to Ramirez, Atty.
Margallo contacted him as per a referral from a friend of
Ramirez's sister. He alleged that Atty. Margallo had offered
her legal services on the condition that she be given 30% of
the land subject of the controversy instead of attorney's fees.
It was also agreed upon that Ramirez would pay Atty.
Margallo P1,000.00 per court appearance.
Respondent's Contention:
By way of defense, Atty. Margallo argued that she had
agreed to take on the case for free, save for travel expense
of P1,000.00 per hearing. She also claimed that she had
candidly informed Ramirez and his mother that they only had
a 50% chance of winning the case. She denied ever having
entered into an agreement regarding the contingent fee
worth 30% of the value of the land subject of the controversy.
48
• __
the Court of Appeals directed Ramirez to file his Appellant's
Brief. Ramirez notified Atty. Margallo, who replied that she
would have one prepared. Atty. Margallo asserted that she
would not have taken on the Appeal except that the mother
of Ramirez had begged her to do so. She claimed that when
she instructed Ramirez to see her for document signing on
January 8, 2009, he ignored her.
When he finally showed up on March 2009, he merely told her
that he had been busy. Her failure to immediately inform
Ramirez of the unfavorable Decision of the Court of Appeals
was due to losing her client's number because her 8-year-old
daughter played with her phone and accidentally erased all
her contacts.
On January 8, 2009, Ramirez contacted Atty. Margallo to
follow up on the Appellant's Brief. Atty. Margallo informed him
that he needed to meet her to sign the documents necessary
for the brief. On several occasions, Ramirez followed up on
the status of the brief, but he was told that there was still no
word from the Court of Appeals.
On August 26, 2009, Atty. Margallo informed Ramirez that his
Appeal had been denied. She told him that the Court of
Appeals' denial was due to Ramirez's failure to establish his
filiation with his alleged father, which was the basis of his
claim. She also informed him that they could no longer
appeal to this court since the Decision of the Court of
Appeals had been promulgated and the reglementary
period for filing an Appeal had already lapsed.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not Atty. Margallo should be held
administratively liable?
RULING:
1. Yes,
- Atty. Mercedes Buhayang-Margallo's (Atty.
Margallo) inaction resulted in a lost appeal,
terminating the case of her client not on the merits
but due to her negligence.
- She made it appear that the case was dismissed on
the merits when, in truth, she failed to file the
Appellant's Brief on time. She did not discharge her
duties of candor to her client.
- Canon 17 and Canon 18, Rules 18.03 and 18.04 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility
---------------------------------------------------------
Negligence
---------------------------------------------------------
Rules 18.01 - A lawyer shall not undertake a legal
service which he knows or should know that he is
not qualified to render. However, he may render
such service if, with the consent of his client, he can
obtain as collaborating counsel a lawyer who is
competent on the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------
Collaborating Counsel
CAPTION: Leviste v. CA, G.R. No. L-29184 (1989)
FACTS:
*
On September 7, 1963, the petitioner, a practicing attorney,
entered into a written agreement with the private respondent
Rosa del Rosario to appear as her counsel in a petition for
probate of the holographic will of the late Maxima C.
Reselva. Under the will, a piece of real property at Sales
Street, Quiapo, Manila, was bequeathed to Del Rosario. It was
agreed that petitionerÊs contigent fee would be thirty-five per
cent (35%) of the property that Rosa may receive upon the
probate of the will (Annex „A", p. 59, Rollo).
On August 20, 1965, Leviste received a letter from Ms. Del
Rosario, informing him that she was terminating his services as
her counsel due to „conflicting interest.‰ This consisted,
according to the letter, in petitionerÊs moral obligation to
protect the interest of his brother-in-law, Gaudencio M.
Llanes, whom Del Rosario and the other parties in the probate
proceeding intended to eject as lessee of the property which
was bequeathed to Del Rosario under the will (Annex „B", p.
60, Rollo)
On September 20, 1965, petitioner filed a „Motion to Intervene
to Protect His Rights to Fees for Professional Services.‰
The petitioner opposed the motion to dismiss his appeal,
claiming that he has a direct and material interest in the
decision sought to be reviewed. He also asked that he be
substituted as party-petitioner, in lieu of his former client, Ms.
Del Rosario.
On March 28,1968, the trial judge dismissed the appeal and
denied petitionerÊs motion for substitution.
ISSUE:
1. W/N Atty Leviste is entitled to his fee? Does the contract of
contingency bestow the lawyer a right to the aforesaid share
in the conjugal partnership?
RULING:
1.NO
- This Court had ruled in the case of Recto vs. Harden,
100 Phil. 1427, that "the contract (for contingent
attorney's fees) neither gives, nor purports to give, to
the appellee (lawyer) any right whatsoever,
personal or real, in and to her (Mrs. Harden's)
aforesaid share in the conjugal partnership. The
amount thereof is simply a basis for the computation
of said fees."
- Article 1052 of the Civil Code does not apply to this
case. That legal provision protects the creditor of a
repudiating heir. Petitioner is not a creditor of Rosa
del Rosario. The payment of his fees is contingent
and dependent upon the successful probate of the
holographic will. Since the petition for probate was
dismissed by the lower court, the contingency did
49
• __
not occur. Attorney Leviste is not entitled to his fee.
- Upon the dismissal of her petition for probate of the
decedentÊs will, she lost her right to inherit any part
of the latterÊs estate. There is nothing for the
petitioner to accept in her name.
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 18.04 - A lawyer shall keep the client informed
of the status of his case and shall respond within a
reasonable time to the client's request for
information.
CAPTION: Olvida v. Gonzales, A.C. No 5732, June 16, 2015
FACTS:
* Alfredo Olvida in November 2000 engaged the services of
the respondent in the filing and handling of a case for
Termination of Tenancy Relationship against tenant Alfonso
Lumanta who was no longer religiously paying the rentals for
a coconut farm in Tibungco, Davao City, owned by his wife
and under his administration. Alfonso had left the leased
property unattended and in a sorry state.
The case was filed on January 22, 2001 and the complainant
represent his wife Norma RodajeOlvida in the case. At the
hearing, the DARAB exerted effors to resolve the case
amicably, but the parties failed to come to an agreement,
prompting the Board to require the parties to submit their
position papers within 40days.
The complainant repeatedly called the respondent's office
for information about the position paper. He did this until April
25, 2001, the last day of its submission, but failed to contact
the respondent. Thus, he was compelled to go to the
respondent's office; but again, he failed to see the respondent
whose secretary could not provide him any information about
the status of the case.
After fruitlessly going back and forth the respondent's office,
the complainant finally contacted the respondent's secretary,
about the position paper and told him that the position paper
had already been filed. When he asked for a copy, he was
told that there was none as it was the respondent himself who
prepared the position paper on his computer
Nine months after the expiration of the period for the filing of
the position paper — a copy of the decision dismissing the
case for lack of merit was received by Alfredo. When he read
the text of the decision, he discovered that Atty. Gonzales did
not file the position paper in the case.
The complainant felt gravely aggrieved by this turn of events,
especially after he learned that the respondent already had
a copy of the decision even before he received his own, and
had not informed him about it. The complainant terminated
the respondent's services.
More than seven years after he was first required by the Court
to do so, the respondent filed his comment. He explained that
the complainant pressed charges against him not because
he failed to file a position paper — under DARAB rules, the
filing of a position paper can be dispensed with — but
because he lost the case.
On August 9, 2010, the Court referred the case to the IBP for
investigation, report, and recommendation. The IBP Board of
Governors found Atty. Gonzales guilty and was
recommended suspension from the practice of law for a
period of four (4) months.
Therefore, premises considered Atty. Arnel C. Gonzales is
suspended from the practice of law for three (3) years.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not respondent is negligent in discharging his
duties as a lawyer in the handling of complainant's case
against his former tenant Alfonso?
RULING:
1. Yes. Atty. Arnel C. Gonzales, is liable as charged.
- He grossly violated Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides: A lawyer
owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he shall
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in
him.
- On the matter alone of keeping complainant
posted on the status of the case, the respondent
failed to comply with his duty under Rule 18.04,
Canon 18 that "a lawyer shall keep the client
informed of the status of the case and shall respond
within a reasonable time to the client's request for
information."
- In Re: Atty. David Briones, the failure of the counsel
to submit the required brief within the reglementary
period is an offense that entails disciplinary action.
His failure to file an appellant's brief has caused the
appeal to remain inactive for more than a year, to
the prejudice of his client, the accused himself, who
continues to languish in jail pending the resolution of
his case.
- Further, the respondent kept to himself his receipt of
a copy of the DARAB's adverse decision which he
received even before the complainant received his
own. This failure to communicate was downright
dishonest and unethical and cannot but aggravate
the respondent's inexcusable neglect in not filing a
position paper in the case. It also showed the
respondent's gross lack of professionalism in dealing
with his client; worse than this, his office, through his
secretary, had even made the complainant believe
that the position paper had already been filed.
---------------------------------------------------------
Duty to Apprise Client
---------------------------------------------------------
50
• __

CANON 19 - A LAWYER SHALL REPRESENT

HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL WITHIN THE BOUNDS CAPTION: Ali v. Atty. Bubong, A.C. No. 4018 (2005)

OF THE LAW. FACTS:

* petition for disbarment was filed against Atty. Mosib Ali
Bubong for having found guilty of grave misconduct while
CAPTION: Belleza v. Macasa, A.C. No. 7815, July 23, 2009
holding the position of Register of Deeds of Marawi City. The
complainant charged respondent with illegal exaction;
FACTS:
indiscriminate issuance of TCT No. T-2821 in the names of
* In this case, after accepting the criminal case against
Lawan Bauduli Datu, Mona Abdullah, Ambobae Bauduli
complainantÊs son and receiving his attorneyÊs fees,
Datu, Matabae Bauduli Datu, Moomadali Bauduli Datu, and
respondent did nothing that could be considered as effective
Amenola Bauduli datu and others for violation of the Anti-
and efficient legal assistance. For all intents and purposes,
Squatting Law. It appears from the record that the Baudali
respondent abandoned the cause of his client. Indeed, on
Datus are relatives of respondent.
account of respondentÊs continued inaction, complainant
was compelled to seek the services of the Public AttorneyÊs
ISSUE:
Office.
1. W/N ill-conceive use of the knowledge of the law by a
lawyer deserves disbarment
RespondentÊs lackadaisical attitude towards the case of
complainantÊs son was reprehensible. Not only did it
2. W/N By taking advantage of his office as the Register of
prejudice complainantÊs son, it also deprived him of his
Deeds of Marawi City and employing his knowledge of the
constitutional right to counsel.
rules governing land registration for the benefit of his relatives
has violated CPR and unfit to be a lawyer
Furthermore, in failing to use the amount entrusted to him for
posting a bond to secure the provisional liberty of his client ,
RULING:
respondent unduly impeded the latterÊs constitutional right to
1. YES, ill-conceived use of his knowledge of the intricacies of
bail.
the law calls for nothing less than the withdrawal of his
privilege to practice law.
ISSUE:
- RespondentÊs conduct manifestly undermined the
1. W/N respondent failed to REPRESENT HIS CLIENT WITH ZEAL
peopleÊs confidence in the public office he used to
occupy and cast doubt on the integrity of the legal
RULING:
profession.
1. YES, instead he acted with lethargy.
- The court affirmed the CBD’s finding of guilt as
2. YES
affirmed by the IBP Board of Governors but we
- The Code of Professional Responsibility does not
modify the IBP’s recommendation as to the liability
cease to apply to a lawyer simply because he has
of respondent. Respondent grossly neglected the
joined the government service.
cause of his client. Respondent undertook to defend
- In the case at bar, respondentÊs grave misconduct,
the criminal case against complainant’s son, but
as established by the Office of the President and
neglected them. A lawyer’s negligence in the
subsequently affirmed by this Court, deals with his
discharge of his obligations arising from the
qualification as a lawyer. By taking advantage of his
relationship of counsel and client may cause delay
office as the Register of Deeds of Marawi City and
in the administration of justice and prejudice the
employing his knowledge of the rules governing land
rights of a litigant, particularly his client. Thus, from
registration for the benefit of his relatives, respondent
the perspective of the ethics of the legal profession,
had clearly demonstrated his unfitness not only to
a lawyer’s lethargy in carrying out his duties to his
perform the functions of a civil servant but also to
client is both unprofessional and unethical.
retain his membership in the bar. Rule 6.02 of the
- A lawyer who accepts the cause of a client commits
Code of Professional Responsibility is explicit on this
to devote himself (particularly his time, knowledge,
matter. It reads:
skills and effort) to such cause. He must be ever
- Rule 6.02·A lawyer in the government
mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him,
service shall not use his public position to
constantly striving to be worthy thereof. Accordingly,
promote or advance his private interests,
he owes full devotion to the interest of his client,
nor allow the latter to interfere with his
warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his
public duties.
clientÊs rights and the exertion of his utmost learning,
- WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Mosib A. Bubong is
skill and ability to ensure that nothing shall be taken
hereby DISBARRED and his name is ORDERED
or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law
STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys
legally applied.16
- A lawyer who accepts professional employment ---------------------------------------------------------
from a client undertakes to serve his client with
competence and diligence.17 Representation with Zeal within Legal Bounds
- ---------------------------------------------------------

51
• __

Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and

honest means to attain the lawful objectives of his
client and shall not present, participate in
presenting or threaten to present unfounded
criminal charges to obtain an improper advantage
in any case or proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------
Use of Fair and Honest Means
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 19.02 - A lawyer who has received information
that his client has, in the course of the
representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person
or tribunal, shall promptly call upon the client to
rectify the same, and failing which he shall
terminate the relationship with such client in
accordance with the Rules of Court.
---------------------------------------------------------
Client’s Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 19.03 - A lawyer shall not allow his client to
dictate the procedure in handling the case.
---------------------------------------------------------
Procedure in Handling a Case
---------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER IV. THE LAWYER AND THE CLIENT

CANON 20 - A LAWYER SHALL CHARGE

ONLY FAIR AND REASONABLE FEES.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Attorney’s fees

When there is no express contract

- The absence of a formal contract will not negate the
payment of attorney’s fees because the contract may be
express or implied. In the absence of an express contract,
payment of attorney’s fees may be justified by virtue of the
innominate contract of facio ut des (I do and you give) which
is based on the principle that “no one shall enrich himself at
the expense of another” [Corpus v. CA, G.R. No. L-40424

52
• __

(1980)]. fees in proportion to the work performed and

responsibility assumed.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 20.01 - A lawyer shall be guided by the
---------------------------------------------------------
following factors in determining his fees;
Rule 20.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the full
knowledge and consent of the client, accept any
(a) the time spent and the extent of the service
fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate or
rendered or required;
forwarding allowance or other compensation
(b) the novelty and difficulty of the questions
whatsoever related to his professional employment
involved;
from anyone other than the client.
---------------------------------------------------------
(c) The importance of the subject matter;
0 shall not accept any fee, reward, costs,
commission, interest, rebate or forwarding
(d) The skill demanded;
allowance or other compensation whatsoever
(e) The probability of losing other employment as a
[without consent of client]
result of acceptance of the proffered case;
---------------------------------------------------------
(f) The customary charges for similar services and 1 Acceptance Fees
the schedule of fees of the IBP chapter to which he ---------------------------------------------------------
belongs; ---------------------------------------------------------
2 CONTINGENT FEES
(g) The amount involved in the controversy and the
benefits resulting to the client from the service;
CAPTION: Research and Services Realty, Inc. v. C.A. G.R. No.
124074. January 27, 1997
(h) The contingency or certainty of compensation;
FACTS:
*
(i) The character of the employment, whether
Upon knowing the existence of the MOA, the private
occasional or established; and respondent filed in Civil Case No. 612 an Urgent Motion to
Direct Payment of AttorneyÊs Fees and/or Register AttorneyÊs
(j) The professional standing of the lawyer. Charging Lien praying, among other things, that the petitioner
be ordered to pay him the sum of P700,000.00 as his
---------------------------------------------------------
contingent fee in the case. 6
Manners by which attorneys may be paid
After hearing the motion, the trial court issued an order dated
11 October 1993 directing the petitioner to pay the private
Manners by which attorneys may be paid
respondent the sum of P600,000.00 as attorneyÊs fees on the
basis of quantum meruit.
• A fixed or absolute fee which is payable regardless of the
result of the case;
ISSUE:
1. W/N private respondents attorneys fee on contingent basis
• A contingent fee that is conditioned upon the securing of a
was valid?
favorable judgment and recovery of money or property and
the amount of which may be on a percentage basis;
RULING:
• A fixed fee payable per appearance; 1. No, Indisputably then, the private respondentÊs attorneyÊs
• A fixed fee computed by the number of hours spent; fee on „contingent basis‰ in Civil Case No. 612 is
unwarranted. If at all, he could only be entitled to attorneyÊs
• A fixed fee based on a piece of work; fees on quantum meruit basis as of the expiration of his
retainer contract on 31 March 1993.
• A combination of any of the above stipulated fees.
- “sufficient factual basis REQUIRED” - Yet, it does not
--------------------------------------------------------- appear from the 11 October 1993 order that he took
the witness stand. From the Minutes of the trial court
Rule 20.02 - A lawyer shall, in case of referral, with
attached to the Rollo of CA-G.R. CV No. 44839, 26 it
the consent of the client, be entitled to a division of appears that only Atty. Atienza and Mr. Suazo gave
oral testimony on the motion. It necessarily follows

53
• __

then that the 11 October 1993 order has insufficient Nature

factual basis, and the trial court committed grave
abuse of discretion in arbitrarily fixing the private Passive lien. Active lien.
respondentÊs attorneyÊs fees at P600,000.00.
- The absence then of the stipulation of additional It cannot be actively It can be enforced by
attorneyÊs fees cannot be construed as a bar to the enforced. execution. It is a special lien
collection of additional attorneyÊs fees in non-
collection cases. It is a general lien.
- While the contract did not mention non-collection
cases, it is, nevertheless, clear therefrom that such Basis
cases were not excluded from the retainership, as
borne out by the provision requiring the private Lawful possession of funds, Securing of a favorable
respondent to „make appearances in court for papers, documents, property money judgment for client
cases involving the corporation or any allied cases belonging to client
pertaining to the latter.‰ As to such cases, there
was no specific stipulation of additional attorneyÊs Coverage
fees.
- NEVERTHELESS, nothing therein shows that Covers Covers
the private respondent agreed to render
professional service in such cases only funds, papers, all judgments for the
gratuitously. The absence then of the documents, and property payment of money
stipulation of additional attorneyÊs fees
cannot be construed as a bar to the in the lawful possession of the and
collection of additional attorneyÊs fees in attorney by reason of his
non-collection cases. professional employment executions
- Quantum meruit simply means „as much as he
deserves.‰ In no case, however, must a lawyer be issued in pursuance of such
allowed to recover more than what is reasonable, judgment
pursuant to Section 24, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court. Effectivity
- This Court had earlier declared the following as
As soon as the lawyer gets As soon as the claim for
circumstances to be considered in determining the
possession of the funds, attorney’s fees had been
reasonableness of a claim for attorneyÊs fees:
papers, documents, property entered into the records of
- (1) the amount and character of the
the case
service rendered;
- (2) labor, time, and trouble involved;
Applicability
- (3) the nature and importance of the
litigation or business in which the services
May be exercised before Generally, it is exercisable
were rendered;
judgment or execution, or only when the attorney had
- (4) the responsibility imposed;
regardless thereof already secured a favorable
- (5) the amount of money or the value of
judgment for his client
the property affected by the controversy or
involved in the employment;
Notice
- (6) the skill and experience called for in the
performance of the services;
Client need not be notified to Client and adverse party
- (7) the professional character and social
make it effective need to notified to make it
standing of the attorney;
effective
- (8) the results secured; and
- (9) whether the fee is absolute or
contingent, it being recognized that an
attorney may properly charge a much CAPTION: Valentin Miranda v. Atty. Macario Carpio, A.C. No.
larger fee when it is contingent than when 6281, September 26, 2011
it is not.
FACTS:
* In defense of his actions, respondent relied on his alleged
--------------------------------------------------------- retaining lien over the ownerÊs duplicate of OCT No. 0-94.
- Respondent admitted that he did not turn over to
--------------------------------------------------------- complainant the owners duplicate of OCT No. 0-94
3 Attorney’s Liens because of complainantÊs refusal, notwithstanding
repeated demands, to complete payment of his
agreed professional fee consisting of 20% of the total
Retaining lien Charging lien area of the property covered by the title, i.e., 378

54
• __
square meters out of 1,890 square meters, or its
equivalent market value at the rate of PhP7,000.00
per square meter, thus, yielding a sum of
PhP2,646,000.00 for the entire 378-square-meter
portion and that he was ready and willing to turn
over the ownerÊs duplicate of OCT No. 0-94, should
complainant pay him completely the aforesaid
professional fee.
- In addition to the alleged agreement between him
and complainant for the payment of the 20%
professional fees, respondent invoked the principle
of „quantum meruit‰ to justify the amount being
demanded by him.
ISSUE:
1. W/N respondent lawyers had the right to HOLD on to the
complainants title
RULING:
1. NO, Respondents unjustified act of holding on to
complainantÊs title with the obvious aim of forcing
complainant to agree to the amount of attorneyÊs fees
sought is an alarming abuse by respondent of the exercise of
an attorneyÊs retaining lien, which by no means is an absolute
right, and cannot at all justify inordinate delay in the delivery
of money and property to his client when due or upon
demand.11
- RespondentÊs further submission that he is entitled to
the payment of additional professional fees on the
basis of the principle of quantum meruit has no
merit. „Quantum meruit, meaning Âas much as he
deservedÊ is used as a basis for determining the
lawyerÊs professional fees in the absence of a
contract but recoverable by him from his client.‰12
The principle of quantum meruit applies if a lawyer is
employed without a price agreed upon for his
services. In such a case, he would be entitled to
receive what he merits for his services, as much as
he has earned.13 In the present case, the parties
had already entered into an agreement as to the
attorneyÊs fees of the respondent, and thus, the
principle of quantum meruit does not fully find
application because the respondent is already
compensated by such agreement.
- The Court notes that respondent did not inform
complainant that he will be the one to secure the
ownerÊs duplicate of the OCT from the RD and
failed to immediately inform complainant that the
title was already in his possession.
- RespondentÊs inexcusable act of withholding the
property belonging to his client and imposing
unwarranted fees in exchange for the release of
said title deserve the imposition of disciplinary
sanction.
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 20.04 - A lawyer shall avoid controversies with
clients concerning his compensation and shall
resort to judicial action only to prevent imposition,
injustice or fraud.
---------------------------------------------------------
4. Fees and Controversies with Clients (Quantum
Meruit)
QUANTUM MERUIT: “as much as a lawyer deserves.”
Essential requisite:
Acceptance of the benefits by one sought to be charged for
services rendered under circumstances as reasonably to
notify him that lawyer expects compensation.
When authorized:
a. The agreement as to counsel fees is invalid for some reason
other than the illegality of the object of performance;
b. There is no express contract for attorney’s fees agreed
upon between the lawyer and the client;
c. When although there is a formal contract of attorney’s
fees, the stipulated fees are found unconscionable or
unreasonable by the court;
d. When the contract for attorney’s fees is void due to purely
formal matters or defects of execution;
e. When the counsel, for justifiable cause, was not able to
finish the case to its conclusion;
f. When lawyer and client disregard the contract of attorney’s
fees; g. When there is a contract, but no stipulation as to
attorney’s fees.
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
5. Concepts of Attorney’s Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
CANON 21 - A LAWYER SHALL PRESERVE
THE CONFIDENCE AND SECRETS OF HIS
CLIENT EVEN AFTER THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT
RELATION IS TERMINATED.
---------------------------------------------------------
Preservation of Client’s Confidences
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 21.02 - A lawyer shall not, to the disadvantage
of his client, use information acquired in the course
of employment, nor shall he use the same to his
own advantage or that of a third person, unless the
client with full knowledge of the circumstances
consents thereto.
Rule 21.03 - A lawyer shall not, without the written
consent of his client, give information from his files
to an outside agency seeking such information for
55
• __
auditing, statistical, bookkeeping, accounting, data
processing, or any similar purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------
1. Prohibited Disclosures and Use
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 21.05 - A lawyer shall adopt such measures as
may be required to prevent those whose services
are utilized by him, from disclosing or using
confidences or secrets of the clients.
---------------------------------------------------------
1. Prohibited Disclosures and Use
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 21.06 - A lawyer shall avoid indiscreet
conversation about a client's affairs even with
members of his family.
---------------------------------------------------------
1. Prohibited Disclosures and Use
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 21.07 - A lawyer shall not reveal that he has
been consulted about a particular case except to
avoid possible conflict of interest.
---------------------------------------------------------
1. Prohibited Disclosures and Use
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 21.01 - A lawyer shall not reveal the
confidences or secrets of his client except;
(a) When authorized by the client after acquainting
him of the consequences of the disclosure;
(b) When required by law;
(c) When necessary to collect his fees or to defend
himself, his employees or associates or by judicial
action.
Rule 21.04 - A lawyer may disclose the affairs of a
client of the firm to partners or associates thereof
unless prohibited by the client.
CAPTION: Wilfredo Anglo v. Atty. Jose Ma Valencia et al., A.C.
No 10567, February 25, 2015
FACTS:
* Complainant alleged that he availed the services of the
law firm of the respondents for labor cases. Atty. Dionela, a
partner of the law firm, was assigned to represent the
complainant.
The labor cases were terminated upon the agreement of
both parties.
A criminal case for qualified theft was filed against the
complainant and his wife by FEVE Farms, represented by the
law which handled the complainant’s labor cases.
Aggrieved. Complainant filed disbarment case against the
respondents, alleging that they violated the rule on conflict of
interest.
IBP Commissioner found the respondents to have violated the
rule on conflict of interest and recommended that the
respondents be reprimanded.
ISSUE:
1. W/N the termination of attorney-client relation provides
justification for a lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or
in conflict with that of the former client
RULING:
1. NO, Verily, the termination of attorney-client relation
provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest
adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client
- Conflict of Interest; There is conflict of interest when
a lawyer represents inconsistent interests of two (2) or
more opposing parties.
- The termination of attorney-client relation provides
no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest
adverse to or in conflict with that of the former
client.·As a final point, the Court clarifies that
respondentsÊ pronounced liability is not altered by
the fact that the labor cases against complainant
had long been terminated. Verily, the termination of
attorney-client relation provides no justification for a
lawyer to represent an interest adverse to or in
conflict with that of the former client. The clientÊs
confidence once reposed should not be divested by
mere expiration of professional employment.
---------------------------------------------------------
2. Disclosure, When Allowed
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
2. Disclosure, When Allowed
---------------------------------------------------------
CAPTION: Mercado v. Vitriolo, A.C. No. 5108 May 26. 2005
FACTS:
* Applying all these rules to the case at bar, we hold that the
evidence on record fails to substantiate complainantÊs
allegations.
We note that complainant did not even specify the alleged
56
• __
communication in confidence disclosed by respondent.
All her claims were couched in general terms and lacked
specificity.
She contends that respondent violated the rule on privileged
communication when he instituted a criminal action against
her for falsification of public documents because the criminal
complaint disclosed facts relating to the civil case for
annulment then handled by respondent. She did not,
however, spell out these facts which will determine the merit
of her complaint. The Court cannot be involved in a guessing
game as to existence of facts which the complainant must
prove.
ISSUE:
1. What is protected by attorney client privilege and
2. what is not protected?
3. Who must prove breach?
4. Was there a breach?
RULING:
1. MATTERS DISCLOSED on account of the (prospective)
attorney-client
- Matters disclosed by a prospective client to a lawyer
are protected by the rule on privileged
communication even if the prospective client does
not thereafter retain the lawyer or the latter declines
the employment. 23 The reason for this is to make
the prospective client free to discuss whatever he
wishes with the lawyer without fear that what he tells
the lawyer will be divulged or used against him, and
for the lawyer to be equally free to obtain
information from the prospective client. 24
2. NOT PROTECTED: a communication from for some OTHER
purpose (not related to attorney-client)
- On the other hand, a communication from a
(prospective) client to a lawyer for some purpose
other than on account of the (prospective)
attorney-client relation is not privileged.
- Thus, the duty of a lawyer to preserve his clients
secrets and confidence outlasts the termination of
the attorney-client relationship,
- Now, we go to the rule on attorney-client privilege.
Dean Wigmore cites the factors essential to establish
the existence of the privilege, viz.: (1) Where legal
advice of any kind is sought (2) from a professional
legal adviser in his capacity as such, (3) the
communications relating to that purpose, (4) made
in confidence (5) by the client, (6) are at his instance
permanently protected (7) from disclosure by himself
or by the legal advisor, (8) except the protection be
waived. 22
3. The Court cannot be involved in a guessing game as to
existence of facts which the complainant must prove. (those
who allege the breach)
4. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the complaint against respondent Atty.
Julito D. Vitriolo is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
CANON 22 - A LAWYER SHALL WITHDRAW
HIS SERVICES ONLY FOR GOOD CAUSE
AND UPON NOTICE APPROPRIATE IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES.
---------------------------------------------------------
Withdrawal of services
CAPTION: Orcino v. Gaspar, A.C. No. 3773, September 24,
1997
FACTS:
* The complaint arose from the following facts: Complainant
engaged the services of respondent to prosecute a criminal
case she intended to file against several suspects in the
slaying of her husband. In consideration thereof, complainant
bound herself to pay respondent legal fees of
P20,000.00·P10,000.00 to be paid upon signing of the contract
and the balance to be paid on or before the conclusion of
the case.
Complainant was also to pay P500.00 per appearance of
respondent before the court and fiscal. This agreement was
embodied in a contract executed on February 22, 1991.
Forthwith, respondent entered into his duties. He interviewed
witnesses and gathered evidence to build a case against the
suspects. He drew up the necessary sworn statements and
dutifully attended the preliminary investigation. The case was
thereafter filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Baloc,
Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija.
As private prosecutor, respondent religiously attended the
bail hearings for the accused although these hearings were
postponed on motion of the accusedÊs counsel. Respondent
however failed to attend the hearing scheduled in August
1991. It was at this hearing that the court, over complainantÊs
objections, granted bail to all the accused. After the hearing,
complainant immediately went to respondentÊs residence
and confronted him with his absence. 6 Respondent
explained that he did not receive formal notice of the
hearing. 7 Complainant became belligerent and started
accusing him of jeopardizing the case by his absence.
Respondent said that her suspicions were based on rumors
and intrigues fed to her by her relatives. 8 Complainant,
however, continued accusing him belligerently. She asked for
the records of the case saying that she could refer them to
another lawyer. Stung by her words, respondent gave her the
records. 9
Complainant never returned the records nor did she see
respondent. On September 18, 1991, respondent filed before
the trial court a „Motion to Withdraw as Counsel.‰ 10 The
motion did not bear the consent of complainant.
57
• __
ISSUE:
1. W/N respondent Atty Gaspar had valid reason to withdraw
from the case?
RULING:
1. NO, A case arising from a simple misunderstanding
between client and counsel does not fall under any of the
grounds where a lawyer may validly withdraw. And he failed
to attain the consent of his client.
- A lawyer may retire at any time from any action or
special proceeding with the written consent of his
client filed in court and copy thereof served upon
the adverse party.·
- A lawyer may retire at any time from any
action or special proceeding with the
written consent of his client filed in court
and copy thereof served upon the adverse
party. Should the client refuse to give his
consent, the lawyer must file an
application with the court. The court, on
notice to the client and adverse party, shall
determine whether he ought to be allowed
to retire. The application for withdrawal
must be based on a good cause.
- Assuming, nevertheless, that respondent was justified
in terminating his services, he, however, cannot just
do so and leave complainant in the cold
unprotected. The lawyer has no right to presume
that his petition for withdrawal will be granted by the
court. 21 Until his withdrawal shall have been
approved, the lawyer remains counsel of record
who is expected by his client as well as by the court
to do what the interests of his client require. 22 He
must still appear on the date of hearing 23 for the
attorney-client relation does not terminate formally
until there is a withdrawal of record. 24
- Legal Ethics; Attorneys; Withdrawal of Counsel;
Among the fundamental rules of ethics is the
principle that an attorney who undertakes to
conduct an action impliedly stipulates to carry it to
its conclusion
- ·The rule in this jurisdiction is that a client has the
absolute right to terminate the attorney-client
relation at any time with or without cause. The right
of an attorney to withdraw or terminate the relation
other than for sufficient cause is, however,
considerably restricted. Among the fundamental
rules of ethics is the principle that an attorney who
undertakes to conduct an action impliedly stipulates
to carry it to its conclusion. He is not at liberty to
abandon it without reasonable cause. A lawyers
right to withdraw from a case before its final
adjudication arises only from the clientÊs written
consent or from a good cause.
- Instances When a Lawyer May Withdraw His
Services.·A lawyer may withdraw his services from his
client only in the following instances:
- (a) when a client insists upon an unjust or immoral
conduct of his case;
- (b) when the client insists that the lawyer pursue
conduct violative of the Code of Professional
Responsibility;
- (c) when the client has two or more retained lawyers
and the lawyers could not get along to the
detriment of the case;
- (d) when the mental or physical condition of the
lawyer makes him incapable of handling the case
effectively;
- (e) when the client deliberately fails to pay the
attorneyÊs fees agreed upon;
- (f) when the lawyer is elected or appointed to
public office;
- (g) other similar cases.
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 22.01 - A lawyer may withdraw his services in
any of the following case:
(a) When the client pursues an illegal or immoral
course of conduct in connection with the matter he
is handling;
(b) When the client insists that the lawyer pursue
conduct violative of these canons and rules;
(c) When his inability to work with co-counsel will
not promote the best interest of the client;
(d) When the mental or physical condition of the
lawyer renders it difficult for him to carry out the
employment effectively;
(e) When the client deliberately fails to pay the fees
for the services or fails to comply with the retainer
agreement;
(f) When the lawyer is elected or appointed to
public office; and
(g) Other similar cases.
---------------------------------------------------------
Withdrawal of services
---------------------------------------------------------
Rule 22.02 - A lawyer who withdraws or is
discharged shall, subject to a retainer lien,
immediately turn over all papers and property to
which the client is entitled, and shall cooperative
with his successor in the orderly transfer of the
matter, including all information necessary for the
proper handling of the matter.
---------------------------------------------------------
SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL
58
• __

---------------------------------------------------------

59